4 ms·
It's a strawman argument, since there are two components here. First, it's hard to make a living as a writer, perhaps your just not good enough or only appeal t
by adsr 15y ago
It's a strawman argument, since there are two components here. First, it's hard to make a living as a writer, perhaps your just not good enough or only appeal to a small part of the population. Secondly your right to get paid for your work. The second part doesn't go away simply because making a living as a writer is hard.
- Helianthus 15y agoYes, it does in fact. It isn't society's responsibility to make writing profitable. Just because the internet et al are making it harder to make a living as a writer doesn't mean we have any responsibility to turn around and make it easier.
- adsr 15y agoIt's society's responsibility to enforce the laws, this isn't a discussion about internet per se, it's not excluded from the laws of the society. Other phenomenons are also thriving on the internet like credit card frauds. By your logic this isn't society's responsibility either, we simply have to accept the current state and adapt.
- nextparadigms 15y agoEven if the laws are wrong? And even more "bad" laws are being introduced?
- adsr 15y agoI'm simply taking the discussion back to the topic. A discussion about the theoretical basis of a copyright law.
- icebraining 15y agoThe point is whether such laws should exist or not, not if they should be enforced. The fact that without such laws some activities are unprofitable is not a reason to keep those laws, unless you think we should ban email to avoid layoffs of post office worker. Or ban Netflix to avoid losing jobs in video rentals.
- adsr 15y agoAbsolutely, and this is my point as well. If you read the post I responded to it should be clear I think. That is, if you believe in the theoretical basis of the law, then the internet does not change that fact.
- ignifero 15y agoIt isn't society's responsibility to make writing profitable. Society rewards everything that benefits itself (at least the society i have agreed to live into). For example it rewards good scientific research because it makes everyone more productive and happier. I believe it has a good reason to make it profitable for writers to write good books too.
- Helianthus 15y agoLet me amend it to say it isn't _necessarily_ society's responsibility to make writing profitable, and from what I've seen enough good writing gets done without being profitable that the distinction between professional writer and serious amateur writer is no longer meaningful.
- wnight 15y agoIf we wanted to help inventors we'd help inventors. If people found a started using a new thing we'd track it back and reward the creator, those who popularized it, teachers, etc. And we'd make education free. But instead we have a system that, if you pay a large (to individuals) fee, and file a ton of complex paperwork, may be persuaded to give you the monopoly right to sue people who used 'your' idea even if they independently invented it. But you're responsible for hiring lawyers to persuade the court to give you the money we supposedly ruled you have a right to. The court won't help by investigating the issue but can be easily convinced to issue crippling restraining orders, an action more likely to kill the accused witch than prove her innocence. No rewards for inventors, but here's a club and license to use it for extortion. We could reward inventors, instead we reward lawyers. Specifically lawyers who cheat inventors. Patents, and copyrights, are a huge negative force on society. We need to get rid of them or we'll be eaten alive by groups who did.