The key I think is to accept that we need to work less, but when we do, work hard. Since what you say is essentially true, I'd settle for decreased quantity instead of decreased quality.
This is exactly why they coined "intellectual property", so you would think it actually is property and make that same argument.
Bottom line, ideas and tales were not propery, and IMHO they shouldn't be.
I would go for economic collapse, thank you. I don't understand all the obsesion with growing, growing and keep growing. From my perspective, we need to focus on happiness over economics. As others point out, we have more than enought production for food and other basic (and not so basic) needs.
On this topic, an interesting read: In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell - http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
Theft is when I take something for you, and you can no longer enjoy it. Share is when you give me something, and we both enjoy it. This issue is a lot closer to the second one.
Intellectual monopoly is not a human right, it's a social agreement from the convenience of the people. To increase culture and invention.
The agreement sounds good, but it has been shown to actually reduce and hinder creativity. Moreover, it's being abused and it's now getting in the way of ACTUAL human rights.
There WAS art and invention BEFORE copyright and patents. It's NOT an utopia. It's a working, proven system.
Think, if we could give access to all the culture in the world (billions of works) to most of the world population (billions of people), what would be the actual worth of it if you use current prices for that calculation?
Guess what, it's much more that what any monopoly is going to gain, EVER. And here is the beauty of it: we CAN do it and it's basically FREE (as in beer). Again, not an utopia.
I agree with you on something, clearly in the presence of a monopoly something makes a lot of money. But usually society loose 100x that much. there is a reason why we severely restrict and oversee monopolies. Why do it different in this case?
So yes, somebody will loose (and it's NOT the artist), but society will gain a lot more. And you know? I'm a developer too. That something works in a certain way now is not an argument to imply that it couldn't work in any other way.
Slashdot Mirror
It is. IANAL, but all laws i have seen in my country end like that, ever really old ones...
The key I think is to accept that we need to work less, but when we do, work hard. Since what you say is essentially true, I'd settle for decreased quantity instead of decreased quality.
This is exactly why they coined "intellectual property", so you would think it actually is property and make that same argument. Bottom line, ideas and tales were not propery, and IMHO they shouldn't be.
I would go for economic collapse, thank you. I don't understand all the obsesion with growing, growing and keep growing. From my perspective, we need to focus on happiness over economics. As others point out, we have more than enought production for food and other basic (and not so basic) needs. On this topic, an interesting read: In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell - http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
Theft is when I take something for you, and you can no longer enjoy it. Share is when you give me something, and we both enjoy it. This issue is a lot closer to the second one. Intellectual monopoly is not a human right, it's a social agreement from the convenience of the people. To increase culture and invention. The agreement sounds good, but it has been shown to actually reduce and hinder creativity. Moreover, it's being abused and it's now getting in the way of ACTUAL human rights. There WAS art and invention BEFORE copyright and patents. It's NOT an utopia. It's a working, proven system. Think, if we could give access to all the culture in the world (billions of works) to most of the world population (billions of people), what would be the actual worth of it if you use current prices for that calculation? Guess what, it's much more that what any monopoly is going to gain, EVER. And here is the beauty of it: we CAN do it and it's basically FREE (as in beer). Again, not an utopia. I agree with you on something, clearly in the presence of a monopoly something makes a lot of money. But usually society loose 100x that much. there is a reason why we severely restrict and oversee monopolies. Why do it different in this case? So yes, somebody will loose (and it's NOT the artist), but society will gain a lot more. And you know? I'm a developer too. That something works in a certain way now is not an argument to imply that it couldn't work in any other way.