• jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I think without some agreement on the value of authorship / creation of original works, it’s pointless to respond to the rest of your argument.

    I agree, for this reason we’re unlikely to convince each other of much or find any sort of common ground. I don’t think that necessarily means there isn’t value in discourse tho. We probably agree more than you might think. I do think authors should be compensated, just for their actual labor. Art itself is functionally worthless, I think trying to make it behave like commodities that have actual economic value through means of legislation is overreach. It would be more ethical to accept the physical nature of information in the real world and legislate around that reality. You… literally can “download a car” nowadays, so to speak.

    If copying someone’s work is so easily done why do you insist upon a system in which such an act is so harmful to the creators you care about?

    • elrik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Because it is harmful to the creators that use the value of their work to make a living.

      There already exists a choice in the marketplace: creators can attach a permissive license to their work if they want to. Some do, but many do not. Why do you suppose that is?