5 ms·

What's your definition of 'need'? If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society

• teddyh 13y ago
  > What's your definition of 'need'? You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense. > If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account. It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society. > By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.
  • gress 13y ago
    The normal sense of 'need' is that a person will die without something. You might be thiking of the word 'want'. You keep saying 'the world does not owe you a living' as though it means something relevant to this discussion. What gives you the right to decide what duties and actions damage society? I think you are damaging society by trying to destroy developers rights over the software they create.
    • teddyh 13y ago
      The normal sense of ‘need’ is as in “I’m going shopping, I need milk.”. What does and does not damage society is certainly open for discussion. But when you frame it as “developers’ rights over the software they create” you are presupposing the conclusion. Why should ideas and other non-rivalrous goods be considered property? If I “own” an idea that you have a copy of, why should this give me power over you?
      • gress 13y ago
        So by need you mean "want". I said nothing about ideas. That is a straw man. I am not presupposing the conclusion. I recognize that developer's rights are artificial. I also recognize that money is artificial as are all property rights. The reason software as a non-rivalrous good should be considered property is because we value the creative output of individuals, and recognize that it takes individual time and investment to add value to the world through this art. In doing so, we are valuing and incentivizing creativity and ingenuity rather than clock hours of work. Price competition can take care of making the fruits of this creativity widely available to those who want it.
        • teddyh 13y ago
          > we value the creative output of individuals This all sounds good, but it is very theoretical. Let’s look at the more practical effects. As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks. So what do we gain to potentially offset these drawbacks? Note that these gains would have to be things we would actually lose if creative output of individuals would cease to have property status. Finally, are these gains large enough to overcome the drawbacks? Furthermore, there are many who argue that, should the creative output of individuals cease to have limits on their dissemination and use, society would gain more than enough to offset any potential drawback of this. It could also be argued that the cost would be entirely transitional, i.e. people would have to get used to new business models and move to different ways of doing business, and there would be otherwise no actual continuous loss by making the creative output of individuals non-owned.