(no title)
danicriss | 2 years ago
It is a bad system though. It restrains the society from benefitting from said work unless they meet certain terms (usually, payments). It's often times unrealistic to pay for all you'd like to consume. Especially that access to their work is usually badly quantised
(For example, I may want to search Sarah Silverman's book for a keyword, once. That'll cost me the same amount as someone reading the book from start to end. [please take this as an illustrative example and don't jump literally on ways to solve this exact problem])
I don't have a better solution yet, but I think we should definitely open up this discussion: can you come up with a system which compensates those who add value to society without restraining access to their products?
I'll go even further to say this is the fundamental issue in our society, way beyond copyright. That is, to find a way to compensate people for the value they add while eliminating the incentive to artificially limit access to resources needed by others
I'll be more concrete with another example. Take a limited resource: housing. In a society where you don't need to gain more because you're already justly compensated maximally for what you're worth, you don't need to own more than the house you live in. In other words, I'm advocating for a society where ownership is limited to what can be possibly consumed. Importantly, limited to no longer mean a way to extract value from artificially creating scarcity for others
I think this website has the best candidates capable of devising such a system. But we need to start by having conversations about the requirements for a better society
It will further need approval from society at large even if it's well defined, so the road is long. But we need to start somewhere, and that's requirements
Sorry I derailed a bit, but I think all this ties closely to the debate: 'is copyright a good system?' rephrased as 'if we want to achieve a goal, is limiting knowledge the best way to go?'. Which can be extrapolated to 'is artificially limiting access the best way to ensure those who produce value are equitably compensated for it?'
cainxinth|2 years ago
Compensation to the creators was merely a means to an end. Furthering progress was the goal:
> Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
DropInIn|2 years ago