4 ms·
Stealing implies deprivation, not duplication. Digital copying is entirely the latter. And very few physical goods are part and parcel to culture - which shou
by Endy 7y ago
Stealing implies deprivation, not duplication. Digital copying is entirely the latter. And very few physical goods are part and parcel to culture - which should be free in any event. We are losing our ability to create mythology, because it's all being crafted for money and shoved out from corporations. Consider the case of Don Quixote - the author felt he had to write a sequel and a "closing" of the story because so many others wrote their own stories of the Man of La Mancha. Bacon pirated from Goethe, Shakespeare from a score of others. Without free duplication and access to media, there is no common conversation - we'd each be trapped in our paywalls. I refuse to accept that; and I believe that culture is more important than money ever will be. A person who creates a seminal work that gets pirated far and wide would be better off accepting it and creating another work to make something off. Either that or having a real living while he creates. The idea of "artist" as a career, especially a prestigious and high-paying career, is one of many missteps of our modern world.
- brokenmachine 7y ago> The idea of "artist" as a career, especially a prestigious and high-paying career, is one of many missteps of our modern world. So you don't think there is anyone who is accomplished enough at being an artist that they should be able to make it a profession? I want to experience the best artists being able to spend the time doing the best work they can possibly do, not a generation of office workers who can only afford to produce mediocre art for a maximum of a couple of hours per day, like me. :(
- incompatible 7y agoWe need to try some different economic models for information. Is there any reason to think that treating it as private property, with artificial scarcity, is the only way that things can be organized? The laws of physics don't require it.
- brokenmachine 7y agoI agree in principle, but what are some other economic models that can work in the real world? Artists need to pay their bills, so the way I see it, they need to be paid by some mechanism.
- incompatible 7y agoGovernment funding. Governments already fund arts and science in many countries. The copyright system is propped up by government involvement anyway.
- creddit 7y agoYou want the government to decide what arts get funded? I'll take the world where I can direct my funds to the projects I like, thanks. The price mechanism strictly dominates central planning in terms of welfare generation. This has been proven over and over again.
- incompatible 7y agoThat's where the funding would come from, how it would be allocated is also a big question. If you want to apply the price mechanism to information, then you also accept copyright, artificial scarcity, and the enforcement mechanisms that go with it.
- creddit 7y agoI'm more than willing to accept that until someone comes up with a better solution. I think it extremely unlikely that a centrally planned solution will ever be superior.
- anoncake 7y ago> I'll take the world where I can direct my funds to the projects I like, thanks. Sure. And the government decides how many funds you direct to them to prevent freeloading. Basically Flattr, but mandatory. > The price mechanism strictly dominates central planning in terms of welfare generation. This has been proven over and over again. Interesting. Can you direct me to that proof? I'd love to see the math. I do know that there is empirical evidence that a dictatorship making 4 year plans does not generate much welfare if it has, at best, 1980s computing power available that is not sufficient to finish even a simplified plan within 4 years. So you really shouldn't put people in charge whose ideology revolves around creating a planned economy as opposed to something reasonable like freedom, solidarity and democracy (including public ownership of the means of production).