Yes it does, if you want to be good at it.

If its a job, you dont need another job, whoch means all your time and effort can be used for being a great artist.

No, because if the information is public domain, then anyone can freely copy and redistribute it. Nobody could incent anything, because as soon as you do, its public, and anyone can copy it. Nobody could create unique software, because anyone could copy it.

If an artist or creator has a unique original idea, then in your system, it is automatically public, and free for anyone to copy and redistribute.

Nobody will give a shit who the original is, if they can get the exact same thing for cheap or for free.

In the 90s, everyone knew who the original artists for music was. They still all downloaded it for free, because they could, and it was not even legal.

So, i’m afraid you’re living in a fantasy world with this idea.

Intellectual property is important. But, I think it is too highly enforced in some cases and not enough in others. For example, I believe it should be the law that anyone could make an operating system fully compatible with windows, and that windows should be force to provide all information to allow that, as otherwise they have an unjust monopoly.

There are other cases like that, like, I believe every nation should make it mandatory that all social media algorithms are publicly declared, able to be copied, and able to be tested to make sure the declared algorithm is correct. This way they cant be biased to brainwash people.

But your idea goes too far, as it completely.destroys anybody’s ability to make profit off ideas.

The result will be that people keep ideas to themselves.

Then artists could not create anything as a job.

This is the biggest load of horseshit I’ve ever read. You’ve broken down a word to its roots, and then used its etymology to create a new definition of the word, and then claim that’s what the definition must be because of the etymology.

Whats the etymology of vaccine? I mean, there are so many words that have gone on to have a changed meaning from the roots of it. How a word developed and what it used to mean, does not determine the definition today.

There’s nothing theocratic about the theory of relativity. If someone says “oh I have a theory as to what happened” they are more closely saying they have a hypothesis, than they are saying they have God’s truth on the subject.

So, i question your authenticity in this discussion, because i find it hard to believe that you genuinely believe what you’re saying to me. Im skeptical you’re even a real person.

I’ll just leave this here

https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/54072318

Why does “theory” carry starker claim absolute truth to you?

Theory, theoretical, these are not claims to absolute truth. Rules maybe, but then id say you’re more correct that they’d be rules of a model.

Relativity is a theory. Its in the name. You might not like it, but it is definitely a theory, and referred to as such by all of science. Maybe you call it model of special relativity, but you’d be the exception. However it would not be incorrect to refer to it as a model, either.

Sometimes science has prevailing theories. They call them theories, because they aren’t known woth certainty. But they still teach them in school, as its our best guess.

You dont have a good understanding of what science is. No scientist claims to know what charge is, what causes it, nor what dark matter is or dark energy.

Scientists say what they can say with reasonable certainty. If they state something, you can research why they state it, and find sound reasoning and experiment that supports it.

If you dont, you can disprove it, and then now you’re a scientist.

Just because you dont know a thing, doesn’t mean others cant know.