3 ms·

This difference in our perspectives is fascinating. I think of cultural works to be owned by society. The moment you make something public then society can do w

This difference in our perspectives is fascinating. I think of cultural works to be owned by society. The moment you make something public then society can do what it wants with it. We give exclusive rights to the author as a pragmatic step to allow them to afford to spend time creating. We won’t need this temporary band-aid when we are fully post-scarcity. I think that society suffers when we artificially make cultural artifacts scarce. I don’t know how to quantify that suffering. I feel like there are parallels between the explosion in quality software and what we can do with it and the availability of open source software (including the languages, documentation, and discovery/distribution).

lancesells 3y ago
> The moment you make something public then society can do what it wants with it. Very strongly disagree with this. If Stephen King decides no more printings of any of his books he's is well within his right to do so. He can share it with the world or not. > I think that society suffers when we artificially make cultural artifacts scarce. I agree with this only if it's the intent of the creator. For instance, putting a Picasso painting in a billionaire's office / yacht / warehouse and locking it away is probably wrong in the sense Picasso most likely didn't want his paintings under lock and key. And although I love Picasso I don't know if there's suffering in society when there's so much other art available. It's a loss for sure, but I don't know if society is any worse.