system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: While it is commonly argued that IP laws (in their current form) stimulate creation and innovation, we do not have the modern research/data/evidence to believe this notion as a fact (or even to believe it as highly probable).

I think that many people see it as some sort of logical no-brainer, common-sense idea that IP laws stimulate innovation.

The way many proponents talk about IP laws, it’s almost as if they see these laws as the thin line between a productive society and complete chaos.

I’m not arguing that anyone is necessarily *wrong* when they suggest these possibilities. I’m only asserting that people who suggest this concept do not have sufficient modern evidence/research/data/etc. to believe this as an actual fact.

And if we don’t have enough support for these claims, it does seem rather extreme that we’ve built forceful laws and economic systems on ideas that are not sufficiently supported or proven.

On the other side of the coin, you have people who believe IP laws actually stifle innovation. These claims are generally based on the idea that property ownership exists because of exclusivity. A million people can’t drink from the same exact cup at the same time. But a million people can use the same exact idea without impeding each other in any way.

Which is where many people think “Well, you’re forgetting that they’re impeding on market share,” because, of course, the “exclusivity” in IP laws is really exclusive market share. This is granted to creators/innovators by the state, ostensibly to stimulate their future creations.

But, once again, when we actually research this topic, the answers are not so clear and we have no conclusive reason to believe that the flow of creation/innovation even follows these market indicators.

And this brings up another question that is rarely discussed— if “parallel thought” occurs and two people invent the exact same idea, why should “getting there first” grant one creator exclusive market share when the other creator did the same great work and is now being prevented from joining the economy?

It’s situations like that which prove that these laws can often stifle the creation of both new works and derivative works. Which begs the question: How can we support laws with demonstrable harm on the basis of an assumed benefit?

Meaning that we can clearly see where creators are stifled or oppressed with these laws, but we cannot clearly see that creators/innovators who make new works successfully would not have already made that same work in the absence of these assumed “incentives.”

We need to support the assumption of these incentives to satisfy the burden of proof.

**So, basically change my view by providing modern support (research/evidence/data/etc.) for the basis of modern IP law.**

Stories about how creators lived centuries ago are nice allegories, but they are admittedly outdated.

Logical thought experiments are helpful to branch out our thinking, but it’s always possible that the logic we use to base our assumptions off of is missing key factors, so getting some modern research/data/evidence would help to avoid that issue. Especially with such a big issue where there are thousands of factors that contribute to the end result.

In addition, logic also shows that IP has no natural exclusivity. The utilitarian view is that this logic does not trump the desire to promote innovation, but they are once again assuming that this will be the outcome without proving their claims.

Just looking for more research and evidence to learn more about this subject.

*Just a reminder, please post research/data/evidence that can actually be read and accessed online. It’s difficult to discuss something that no one on reddit can actually see or read.*
gpt
Before copyright and similar IP laws existed, creators had no protection. You could come up with a wonderful way to pave roads, build bridges, whatever, and someone could steal your idea with no recourse for you. 

Now with protection you can nurture your ideas and let them take shape. If we all know ahead of time that our work is always vulnerable then 2 immediate effects happen. 1) people stop innovating because they’re always at risk. 2) Groups if companies/gangs that make vast sums based on stolen work pop up. Wealth accumulates in the hands of a very few.