I understand the opposing argument as, "Yes the guy 'needs' to be able to make a living. Just like I 'need' a private jet. He needs to make a living, but NOT at the cost of bringing bits into existence that I am not allowed to copy!! That is supremely unfair. It's better if those bits don't exist at all. I just can't stand the existence of bits that in any sense 'belong' to someone, and it's better if he doesn't create them at all. If you create some bits, and I can view them, then I REQUIRE the right to copy them. THis is my inalienable freedom. If infringing on this freedom is what allows for the economic creation of amazing bits, then that system is flawed and those bits shouldn't end up getting created."
The above is honestly how people who are currently greyed-out in this thread seem to feel. (Though they don't say it as clearly.) It really is a supreme case of entitlement.
-
Edit: last sentence originally read supreme sense of entitlement; to be clear, the last sentence is my own personal judgment. I don't agree with these people, and I am fine with the existence of bits I am allowed to view but not to copy, i.e. that in a sense are owned by someone else who has an exclusionary right to them, that they can use to keep me from doing certain things without their permission.
I'll agree to the jist of your "opposing argument" above, except for the uncomfortable tone, and this derogation:
> It really is a supreme sense of entitlement.
That doesn't follow. Why do you attribute such disrespect to people who prefer a different economic/social organization for creative works?
I am a content producer. By trade, by hobby, by lifestyle. I license my works as CC0 as much as possible, and use copyleft for software so that those same works can't be held against me by the copyright system I'm trying to escape. I simply value my freedom of expression, including a philosophy of sharing works, and I also think it would lead to increased economic efficiency for the society.
It's a different perspective, I don't see a reason why you must call it "a supreme sense of entitlement" when I am one of the people creating these works that I want to be shared. It's just a different way for us to structure our resources and freedoms.
"That doesn't follow. Why do you attribute such disrespect to people who prefer a different economic/social organization for creative works?"
Because there are plenty of people out there who say exactly that. Granted, in general, they are not content producers themselves. People who believe that they are entitled to these things because they wouldn't pay for them anyway.
if you want to update your profile with an email (or email me) I can summarize my thoughts on society privately - it would just be noise in this thread.
The above is honestly how people who are currently greyed-out in this thread seem to feel. (Though they don't say it as clearly.) It really is a supreme case of entitlement.
-
Edit: last sentence originally read supreme sense of entitlement; to be clear, the last sentence is my own personal judgment. I don't agree with these people, and I am fine with the existence of bits I am allowed to view but not to copy, i.e. that in a sense are owned by someone else who has an exclusionary right to them, that they can use to keep me from doing certain things without their permission.