4 ms·

> I don't see copyright or a record label as artificial scarcity It's allocating resources towards preventing distribution. Maybe you'd agree that it's "direct

by Ukv 3y ago

> I don't see copyright or a record label as artificial scarcity It's allocating resources towards preventing distribution. Maybe you'd agree that it's "direct" artificial scarcity, but believe without that necessary artificial scarcity we'd soon become worse off overall? > I think the artist should have every right to profit from their work. Sure - but you see that is not inherently the same thing as the specific method of profit extraction through requiring payment per access to the book/image/music/..., right? An artist receiving donations or public funding for releasing their work to everyone under a permissive license is still profiting from their work, for example. I'm not necessarily saying you have to agree that alternative methods are currently feasible in all or most scenarios.

DeIlliad 3y ago
Sure, I'd agree selling access is not the only method but given that there is a story on the front page of HN about once a week about why open-source maintainers should be paid and how the current model isn't sustainable, in my opinion shows, that relying on donations or public funding is a fool's errand and not a viable alternative.
- Ukv 3y ago
  > given that there is a story on the front page of HN about once a week about why open-source maintainers should be paid and how the current model isn't sustainable Opinion articles on HN notwithstanding, do you not think that free and open-source software has, as a whole, been fairly successful? Moreover, IP law doesn't just apply to art or code - evergreening of medical patents is enforcing artificial scarcity on information that could save lives. Textbooks that could teach millions being restricted to the few thousand that pay is also going to have a huge hidden impact. I don't know if there are viable alternatives for all scenarios, but given how much is on the table if artificial scarcity can be replaced - I think it'd be wrong not to actively try, encouraging any potential alternatives, rather than just being resigned to the idea that this much waste is necessary. At the very least we should oppose the attempts to enforce artificial scarcity in areas that currently managed to do without it.

by Ukv 3y ago

DeIlliad 3y ago

Sure, I'd agree selling access is not the only method but given that there is a story on the front page of HN about once a week about why open-source maintainers should be paid and how the current model isn't sustainable, in my opinion shows, that relying on donations or public funding is a fool's errand and not a viable alternative.

Ukv 3y ago
> given that there is a story on the front page of HN about once a week about why open-source maintainers should be paid and how the current model isn't sustainable Opinion articles on HN notwithstanding, do you not think that free and open-source software has, as a whole, been fairly successful? Moreover, IP law doesn't just apply to art or code - evergreening of medical patents is enforcing artificial scarcity on information that could save lives. Textbooks that could teach millions being restricted to the few thousand that pay is also going to have a huge hidden impact. I don't know if there are viable alternatives for all scenarios, but given how much is on the table if artificial scarcity can be replaced - I think it'd be wrong not to actively try, encouraging any potential alternatives, rather than just being resigned to the idea that this much waste is necessary. At the very least we should oppose the attempts to enforce artificial scarcity in areas that currently managed to do without it.