4 ms·
Because, as with groceries, you're depriving someone else of content by consuming it. You wouldn't download a car. It's the most disingenuous argument against
by genera1 8y ago
Because, as with groceries, you're depriving someone else of content by consuming it. You wouldn't download a car.
It's the most disingenuous argument against free media (or piracy etc) that's being thrown around.
- hyperbovine 8y ago> It's the most disingenuous argument No, it's not. I actually used to write for a newspaper before. These days, they are shoestring operations locked in a constant battle for financial survival. The stories are written by real people who get paid (very little) real money. Take that out of the equation and the news goes away. I deeply value journalism and want it to survive. The level of entitlement evinced by you, gp, and many others on this site as regards the whole "information wants to be free" meme is simply stunning. Like, you really haven't given a moment's thought to what "free" implies here.
- genera1 8y agoWhile I do agree with some concerns about quality journalism, and I want it to survive, I find the specific argument you used to be disingenuous. We're dealing with perfectly and infinitely reproducible 'product'. Any scarcity here is artificially imposed. It's not like with groceries, where we have finite amount of goods, that can only be consumed once. I know, that reality of dealing with non-scarce goods doesn't gel very well with free-market capitalism, but I think limiting access to journalism (and IP laws such as copyrights and patents) is a net negative for our society, so we shouldn't resort to bending our only post-scarcity type of good into a scarcity driven economic system.
- hyperbovine 8y agoSplendid. Impressive. Who pays? It’s a very simple question I’m asking you.
- genera1 8y agoGet rid of market capitalism and nobody has to