Business ideas, is it right that the originator of successful ideas don't benefit?

Dont regulate the crap out of the development process.

Allow every potential twist and turn.

China is under attack for the engineering of technology, and it is bad for us all. (The attack is bad. China is right.)

But China censors as lot of website information.

Here in the United States, we have a political party, called Democrats, that want to destroy information in the name of "protecting democracy" (as if!).

Humanists should shudder!

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Are you talking about patents or copyright protections?

I only care about freedom of information, innovation, and development.

Tear down barriers for everybody and don't let anyone use laws to prevent others from learning & using.

"PUBLIC DOMAIN"

PUBLIC DOMAIN

PUBLIC DOMAIN!

(You understand that somebody "getting rich" can simply mean consumers are voting with wallets for "development" of certain ideas, right?)

(As long as there are no barriers to the whole planet developing along multiple levels of twists & turns, then what is the problem?)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

So, do you have a law in mind, to remove or add, in the legal code?

You have a problem with something, right?

I am not sure you spelled out the exact problem.

I have a problem with far too-strict copyright laws. I wonder if you feel that the laws are fine, but they are not used by enough people - who "invent something" - so as to prevent others from further development & refinement which at times leads to (sigh) money being made.

That is the bigger problem, by far.

But as for copyrights:

Issues of "fair use" need a total revamp.

There is a high expense for getting permission to reproduce a cut of art, in a book. There should be a progressive fee, depending on the book genre, profits of book, educational value, etc. The lucrative fiction novel industry should probably be taxed to fund certain serious non-fiction types of work (scholarly books require an army of experts tut o produce, and there are few people who are interested in purchasing the product).

The copyright should expire much sooner than the law has it, now.

Perhaps proper credits should accompany reproductions.

Wikipedia is limited by copyright laws, as there is a limit to what can be a "fair use" quote.

I think wikipedia allows for articles, of its own, to be copied.

There was an issue, for a trailblazer music site. NAPSTER, over making sure music artists got royalties. That site charged for music downloads.

Required advertising for reproductive of certain works, can guarantee revenue for copyright holders.

There should be a way to ensure the public access, and that assurance should be the main issue. Revenue collection could be an issue, but the rights of the public to be informed should be the immediate priority. Then the secondary revenue issue comes, but it is a distant issue in terms of importance