Where did this right come from? Why is it more important than the "right to amass wealth via exchange of IP"
Like I said, that freedom to make money and be autonomous is respected in our society, and so is the freedom to reject it if someone decides to live in a commune without 'property'
As for the issue of the freedom of restricting people from taking what they don't recognize as 'property, such is a required evil in order to protect our more fundimental freedoms. Basically, without this one, we could die from starvation, or die from squalid conditions, and dead people have no freedoms. Also, less basic freedoms are threatened, like our ability to avoid reliance on others (No one who could easily be blackmailed and lose everything at the hands of the commune is truly free)
None of this applies to copyright. It is not required to protect our lives unless we are so foolish to purposely depend on them for survival (in the case of resources, we have no choice.) And freedom can still thrive in the absence of art, but not in the absence of resources.
Agreed, a limited amount of copying doesn't really cause much harm. It would be a different matter though if copying was as easy for everyone as for the author though (ie. no legal / practical restrictions) since there would then be very little incentive for the creator, since it would give him no advantage.
Really? What insentive did the author of this article have? He even got rejected for poor quality and wrote it again, better. He will never hear a thank-you for the enlightenment he's provided, or from the stirring debates he's inspired. He'll never see a red cent for his repeated efforts. Why don't we ask him if he has any regrets wasting his time?
Just because multi-million dollar massive budget blockbusters will diseappear doesn't mean that art in general will suffer.
However, those who appreciate art which was artifically inspired by money instead of comming from natural vision and talent are in the vast minority.
I'm certainly not trying to claim that. Laws should have moral justifications, rather than defining morality. IMHO having a society with enforced IP law benefits nearly everyone in that society more than it harms them.
Then I apologize for the accusation of the contrary.
I find that it very much depends on whether the work in question is their own or someone elses. Personally I think that if someone creates something, whether physical or mental, it is right that they should have the ability to dictate what people can do, and wrong to agree to those terms just to get what you want, and then break them (eg. buy a CD and then distribute it to lots of others, despite the author's wishes)
That raises an interesting point. Perhaps people who are primarally authors and secondarally consumers won't truly understand what they're putting people through, and may simply feel morally justified to sue people because of a lack of empathy for being in the shoes of the defendant.
Personally, I try to be empathetic as much as possible. I try to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, the Golden rule. I'm a free-sofware writer.
As for 'agreeing to those terms just to jet what you want, and then break them', I totally agree. If someone is bound by honor not to distribute it they should not. It'd be a stretch, but this may apply to copying CDs. However, it does not apply to a second generation copier. They made no such agreement, express or implied.
Although my personal distaste for liars and agreement breakers does not give me the right to sue them or otherwise violate their freedom unless they cost me directly.
Moreover, nothing says that the money will stop if copyright is abolished. I used to think it would too, and that it was worth it for freedom. But I was wrong. Even kuro5hin is managing to sell ads, but the Scoop engine is completely copylefted. Moral considerations aside, the copylefted system seems to work well, it's just a matter of changing our business models to match the changing society.
[ Parent ]