4 ms·
Why not use an actual real example instead of a fantasy of infinite socks? And you bind your concept of "morally just" to cost. What if it cost $.05 to copy? W
by vcg3rd 3y ago
Why not use an actual real example instead of a fantasy of infinite socks? And you bind your concept of "morally just" to cost.
What if it cost $.05 to copy? Why is moral and just (related but not equivalent) bound to cost?
As to a real example: a professor of medieval history has incurred the cost of his education, including reading handwriting in a foreign language, the cost of time, effort, travel and more in researching and writing and has now typed up a book on his computer and it is "free"[1] to distribute so it's morally just to give a copy to all who want it?
You pretty much cloaked your greed in a word salad of meaningless moralizing with a jargon dressing and no real context.
[1] Even digital requires the cost of equipment, electricity, and access, so if you bind morally just to free it doesn't exist.
- MacsHeadroom 3y agoNobody has a moral right to be reimbursed for the costs they incurred to produce an original work. If they produce it under a contract then they have a contractual right to be paid as stipulated in the contract.
- jeremyjh 3y agoWe aren't talking about moral rights, we are talking about incentives to produce the work in the first place.
- vcg3rd 3y agoWhere did I write one has a moral right to reimbursement? Your inferences are you own. Let me restate what I clearly and obviously wrote: The history professor has no moral obligation to give his book away digitally. The person I replied to stated unequivocally that people deserve free stuff if it cost nothing. I refuted both that argument and the argument that anything is distributed, let alone produced, without cost. Is that clear enough or do you want to build another strawman?