3 ms·

Show us 1 author available in shadow libraries who would literally starve. It's ridiculous. If you can pay, you'll pay. And if you can't you were never part of

by 627467 2y ago

Show us 1 author available in shadow libraries who would literally starve. It's ridiculous. If you can pay, you'll pay. And if you can't you were never part of the market

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Obviously "starving" was hyperbole, but that doesn't change the fact that they wrote it and you just want it for free. I've never heard a cogent, logically consistent argument from the "knowledge should be free" crowd about why creators of this knowledge shouldn't be compensated.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > I've never heard a cogent, logically consistent argument from the "knowledge should be free" crowd about why creators of this knowledge shouldn't be compensated. And I have never heard a cogent, logically consistent argument from the "intellectual rights" crowd about why this justifies the usage of violence against the "knowledge should be free" crowd.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > you're also part of the "I'm going to call anything I don't like 'violence'" crowd. Every law is a control program for violence - this is what laws are for. While I agree that "no laws" don't work, I am part of the "violence should be used with utter care" and "violence is the utter last resort" crowds. :-)
- 627467 2y ago
  IP - unlike actual real property - is not really defensible by property owners, other than using state monopoly forces. IP is also very hard to globally enforce. Why should society - all societies - pay for such enforcement? IP can only be protected when it's least valuable to all - including the owner: when it's not disclosed/distributed. So, it's a give and take: accept distribution and accept that some people will not care about your "rights" OR don't distribute (and don't benefit from non-distribution)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- account42 2y ago
  Hi, i just farted. Why should I not be compensated for that?

by 627467 2y ago

Show us 1 author available in shadow libraries who would literally starve. It's ridiculous. If you can pay, you'll pay. And if you can't you were never part of the market

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Obviously "starving" was hyperbole, but that doesn't change the fact that they wrote it and you just want it for free. I've never heard a cogent, logically consistent argument from the "knowledge should be free" crowd about why creators of this knowledge shouldn't be compensated.

aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> I've never heard a cogent, logically consistent argument from the "knowledge should be free" crowd about why creators of this knowledge shouldn't be compensated. And I have never heard a cogent, logically consistent argument from the "intellectual rights" crowd about why this justifies the usage of violence against the "knowledge should be free" crowd.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > you're also part of the "I'm going to call anything I don't like 'violence'" crowd. Every law is a control program for violence - this is what laws are for. While I agree that "no laws" don't work, I am part of the "violence should be used with utter care" and "violence is the utter last resort" crowds. :-)
627467 2y ago
IP - unlike actual real property - is not really defensible by property owners, other than using state monopoly forces. IP is also very hard to globally enforce. Why should society - all societies - pay for such enforcement? IP can only be protected when it's least valuable to all - including the owner: when it's not disclosed/distributed. So, it's a give and take: accept distribution and accept that some people will not care about your "rights" OR don't distribute (and don't benefit from non-distribution)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
account42 2y ago
Hi, i just farted. Why should I not be compensated for that?