Implicit in my characterization "copyright for ideas" is that this proposal will somehow extend copyright, as it's currently understood, to cover ideas. I understand your point that copyright as it exists today does not cover more abstract ideas.
The main difference I was attempting to emphasize between copyrights and patents is that copyrights are automatic whereas patents must be filed and granted. And my point is that your proposal, which seems quite reasonable to me, would seem to work just fine with the copyright model of automatic rights: no patent filing required. And for that matter, the distinction between elaborate designs, which cannot be copied, and "flashes of insight", which can, looks a lot to me like a principle of fair use.
Comments
Implicit in my characterization "copyright for ideas" is that this proposal will somehow extend copyright, as it's currently understood, to cover ideas. I understand your point that copyright as it exists today does not cover more abstract ideas.
The main difference I was attempting to emphasize between copyrights and patents is that copyrights are automatic whereas patents must be filed and granted. And my point is that your proposal, which seems quite reasonable to me, would seem to work just fine with the copyright model of automatic rights: no patent filing required. And for that matter, the distinction between elaborate designs, which cannot be copied, and "flashes of insight", which can, looks a lot to me like a principle of fair use.
No?