3 ms·

Historically speaking, the only reason anyone "owns" media is due to literally hundreds of years of lobbying. Books, stories, and songs were all once free to co

Historically speaking, the only reason anyone "owns" media is due to literally hundreds of years of lobbying. Books, stories, and songs were all once free to copy. This is the nature of religious books, fairy tales, and folk songs. Ethically speaking, "ownership" has a tenuous position. I find it easier to argue that ownership is a construct of society than it is an innate part of anything. That means it's flexible to what society decides. Right now, on this issue, that's definitely in flux. From a utilitarian perspective, it's really pretty weird too. Ignoring economics for a second (that's my next point), it is probably better for all society to have information free of barriers. A lot more people can enjoy it if more people have access, particularly when the cost of copy and distrubution is so cheap. Economically it costs a LOT of money though. HBO would not produce game of thrones without being able to get said money back. And they're only going to put as much money into it as they expect to get back. Why don't we have more CGI dragons? because HBO, while rich, is not an endless supply of money. and CGI dragons are really expensive. Yes, to reiterate the point, if HBO had enough money we'd have more dragons. And as for the cost? $15/month for one show is actually VERY reasonable. Remember it costs millions of dollars to produce - just that one show. Even if you don't watch any other show you are still getting more than your money's worth. If you do watch other shows (And I highly recommend it), it's still easily worth your money. BTW, Netflix, HuluPlus, etc are also all worth their relative costs relative to what you get out of them.

rhino369 10y ago
The only reason you own anything is thousands of years of lobbying. Copyright and property rights are both artificial constructs.
- Ace17 10y ago
  The scarcity that physical property deals with isn't artificial.
  - rhino369 10y ago
    I'd argue that the lack of scaricity makes owning a work of art less problematic. Someone can always make a new one. I was born into a world where every peace of land I could use to survive on is owned. But there are an unlimited number of songs or books that can be written. What's the harm in letting a person own the book they created. There are an unlimited number left.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      That's not how it works. New ideas are scarce, in that they require effort (and ultimately energy) to create. There are not "an unlimited number left", someone has to actually create them. However, ideas are not rivalrous. Once they are created, everyone in the world can benefit from them simultaneously at no additional cost. Therefore, the immediate opportunity cost of allowing people to own ideas is far greater than for physical property.

rhino369 10y ago

The only reason you own anything is thousands of years of lobbying. Copyright and property rights are both artificial constructs.

Ace17 10y ago
The scarcity that physical property deals with isn't artificial.
- rhino369 10y ago
  I'd argue that the lack of scaricity makes owning a work of art less problematic. Someone can always make a new one. I was born into a world where every peace of land I could use to survive on is owned. But there are an unlimited number of songs or books that can be written. What's the harm in letting a person own the book they created. There are an unlimited number left.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    That's not how it works. New ideas are scarce, in that they require effort (and ultimately energy) to create. There are not "an unlimited number left", someone has to actually create them. However, ideas are not rivalrous. Once they are created, everyone in the world can benefit from them simultaneously at no additional cost. Therefore, the immediate opportunity cost of allowing people to own ideas is far greater than for physical property.