4 ms·

You’re comparing a routine transaction of paying someone for their performance, to an unrealistic hypothetical involving the monopolization of a critical resour

You’re comparing a routine transaction of paying someone for their performance, to an unrealistic hypothetical involving the monopolization of a critical resource required to survive more than 3 days. It’s hard to take that argument seriously. You’re misusing the word monopoly. Everyone has a monopoly on their own labor. But they don’t have a monopoly on music, and neither does Metallica. You’re not entitled to a man’s song and dance under any circumstances that don’t involve him entering into a mutually agreeable transaction with you. If this makes life not worth living, hopefully you can find someone else willing to accept your offer of giving them nothing in exchange for it. If you can’t, well, tough shit I guess. You still don’t deserve it for free. It’s not Lars’ problem if you will die without his music.

ouid 6y ago
I'm not talking about a transaction where someone performs for me, that's not what copyright refers to, I'm talking about an infinite well. And the comparison was between any infinite well and an infinite well of water. Granting someone scarcity rights on an unscarce resources is inefficient. Society would, instantaneously, produce a lot more value if all of the things that were free to reproduce were reproduced at the quantity demanded. The question of copyright has ALWAYS been one of incentive, and I think my argument to that point is pretty clear. Further, I am not misusing the word monopoly. Copyright is precisely monopoly distribution rights.