4 ms·
I would actually go even further and say that the only restriction we should eventually need is crediting the original author. Potential individual profit (as i
by slx26 6y ago
I would actually go even further and say that the only restriction we should eventually need is crediting the original author. Potential individual profit (as in economic profit) makes sense in the current world where the distribution of resources is terrible and you want to be able to capitalize on your ideas. But ideally, if that's not an issue in the future, all you could reasonably want is "acknowledgement for your contributions". Even there the line is hard to draw, but I find myself more and more aligned with this perspective lately. Might still be too egocentric, though, and maybe not even "acknowledgement" is necessary. Maybe if acknowledgement was culturally more widespread even a law like this wouldn't make sense to me.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y agoThat is a vacuous statement. Yes, profit is only a problem if money is a problem. But given money is still used by society (and will be used for decades), it is pretty obvious you cannot remove profit. Do it, and only rich people will be able to create. No Harry Potter for us.
- slx26 6y agoWell, I feel your reply is somewhat uncharitable. I mean, I said "ideally", and I didn't talk about money disappearing, only about, as you expressed, "money [not] being a problem". Which you might still consider naive, fair enough, but that's another story. And honestly, even if in practice it makes no immediate difference, telling apart the "moral" issues and the practical ones is relevant for analysis and defining the direction we want to move towards.