3 ms·

>In a liberal society, the question of "why should a citizen be allowed to do X" is wrong. The proper question is, "why not?" The "why not" is implicit in my q

>In a liberal society, the question of "why should a citizen be allowed to do X" is wrong. The proper question is, "why not?" The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? >Taking means "dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove". There's no "taking" involved. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value.

icebraining 12y ago
The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? Your question is senseless. As a producer of Free/Libre works, I can assure you there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits (it's my whole income). But it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's, like in any other activity. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value. It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  The question is quite sensible, although as with anything, it can be rendered senseless by reducing it to a logical fallacy: "I am an artist. This does not harm me. Therefore, this does not harm any artists". >there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits Surely there are, else this thread would not exist. >it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's That seems absurd on its face, but perhaps you mean something other than what can otherwise be extended to say that there should be no contract law, property rights, etc.? If so, please enlighten us as to how you capture benefits without any assistance from society/civil law. >It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator Surely you know that statement was intended to say the value is destroyed for the creator. But, if not, there it is.

icebraining 12y ago

The "why not" is implicit in my question, but I will rephrase if you prefer: why should content producers not be able to enjoy the economic benefit of their labor? Your question is senseless. As a producer of Free/Libre works, I can assure you there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits (it's my whole income). But it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's, like in any other activity. This rationalization is a pretty old one and it's just wrong. The economic value of the creation is absolutely being destroyed and thus the creator is being dispossessed of that value. It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
The question is quite sensible, although as with anything, it can be rendered senseless by reducing it to a logical fallacy: "I am an artist. This does not harm me. Therefore, this does not harm any artists". >there's no impediment to enjoying such benefits Surely there are, else this thread would not exist. >it's my job to figure out how to capture them, not society's That seems absurd on its face, but perhaps you mean something other than what can otherwise be extended to say that there should be no contract law, property rights, etc.? If so, please enlighten us as to how you capture benefits without any assistance from society/civil law. >It's not being destroyed, it's simply remaining with the consumer instead of being transferred to the content creator Surely you know that statement was intended to say the value is destroyed for the creator. But, if not, there it is.