Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5420099" data-attributes="member: 19675">That is not the assertion I made.  Non-essentials ARE important, they are just not important enough that the State has any justification to force someone to supply them to those who lack.A State may be able to force a company to supply goods that keep its population fed, clothed and sheltered (if no alternative exists), but to force someone to supply a non-essential is- depending upon your political leanings- facism, the nanny state, communism, etc.Entertainment IS important.  It is NOT important enough, however, that the supplier of a particular form of entertainment be enslaved to the wishes of the populace.Again, this goes back to the nature of ownership.  If I cannot prohibit the use of property, then I don't own it.ALL property is a social convention.  Many societies have existed where there is no concept of personal ownership...though not many of them have survived the test of time.If you want to knock down ownership of IP, just realize that there will be a great cost associated with removal of its protection.As for the access issue: its true that if you hack my computer and steal one of my recordings, I still have access to it.  However, I have lost the ability to sell it to you or to any third party with whom you "share" it- just like a material property owner.  If the "sharing" goes on at an exponential rate (I'm a DAMN good guitarist <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />), eventually, the entire market for that recording will be destroyed unless I somehow find a way to add value to it.I'm no less damaged than if someone drills into the reservoir beneath my home and takes all the liquid found within it.Just because something is easy to steal doesn't mean its any less stolen when its gone.But that isn't what I said.  I said there is no State force compelling the creator to remove their creations from the public.  THAT is a crime against society.The State protecting a creator's rights in his own work, be it a concept or a crop in the field isn't what we're discussing.  The State, by protecting IP, is encouraging persons to create it because that monopoly gives them a chance to profit from their efforts.  THAT leads to the enrichment of society, it is generally seen as a social good.I agree that those things are fundamental as well.However, I disagree that your right to liberty, dignity and the pursuit of happiness entitles you to take away my control (or the control of my successors in interest) of what I create.Agreed.That sentence you parsed was just a way of shorthanding that there are lots of different schools of ethical theory before getting to the next point...and I'm pretty sure if you're an ethics hotshot, you realized that.  The semicolons were there to provide a "cliff's note" version of a couple of them.  I'm sure you realized that as well.  So why the show?There are what, 2 dozen general schools of thought about the nature of ethics- deontology, consequentialism, cyrenaic hedonism, epicurianism and stoicism to name but a few (some of which conflict inherently with others)- not to mention all the hundreds if not thousands of unique religious nuances on each...Yet I can't think of one that justifies forcing a creator of ideas to share them.True, but when you start applying ethical constructs to ephemera like specific kinds of entertainment, those systems break down.  None will compel the creator to create.Because that is slavery.No, I'm asserting that this position you seem to support would entail such disruptions to the creative process (and the sale or licensing of the fruits of that process) as to be severely curtailing the liberty, dignity and pursuit of happiness of the creators of IP.</blockquote>

Verification