4 ms·

But as long as the economic system as a whole does not work as you describe it, isn't it unproductive to strip artists of their rights in the current system bef

But as long as the economic system as a whole does not work as you describe it, isn't it unproductive to strip artists of their rights in the current system before we implement a new one? -- And there are many people with free time already (me included). The whole free market argument goes both ways. Right now we allow both copyrighted and "free" content on the market. Why can't copyleft content just win out in the market of consumption if the existence copyright doesn't have a conceptual advantage?

Suncho 15y ago
That's a very good question, but my answer is no for a few reasons. 1. Change is gradual. Copyright exclusivity can slowly be ramped down at the same time the government gradually provides more and more services for its citizens. One doesn't have to come before the other. Meanwhile, there certainly shouldn't be any new enforcement of copyright (or patent) exclusivity where none existed before. 2. Copyrights aren't rights. They're tradable monopolies upheld by the government. You'd actually be giving artists more rights by removing exclusivity. No longer would be able to take away their right to do whatever they want with their own work. The artists who are in it for the money are doing it for the wrong reasons. 3. The economy will never work as I describe it as long as copyright exclusivity enforced. I don't believe in copyleft. It still involves keeping track of licenses on everything, which can get very out of hand. Big corporations should be able to use free software too. Copyright exclusivity is the only reason an intellectual property market exists today. The law can affect the economy and vice versa. We can bootstrap ourselves out of this mess.