I wonder how much of this kneejerk reaction can be rooted back to being taught in school that copying is bad. If someone's copying me, they didn't have to do the hard work I did, and therefor it's immoral, even if it doesn't cause any loss for me.
It's about where the bar is. Most people agree copying someone's else novel and selling it is wrong. Copying parts of it that went into popular culture? Making variations on some characters? Those are more interesting. We just need to find some reasonable rules to balance various incentives.
Why?
Please read me carefully: I am not accusing you of resentment.
But I already excluded issues of finance and recognition in my conditions above.
So, other than spitefulness and resentment, what else might possess us to declare that if "anyone is free to copy and fully use" some work, then it's not worth doing?
Do you not feel the incredible plenitude and abundance of creativity that urges you toward generosity?
Is capitalism responsible for somehow poisoning us with the idea that scarcity is necessary for valuable endeavour?
Finance is pretty important though, if you want to feed and shelter yourself and your family. Most other types of work cannot be made worthless by others seeing it and copying it.
But the work of researching and thinking and producing a solution can, so the government figured there should be a way to recoup costs and provide incentive.
I want to live in a world where people who do awesome work are awesomely rewarded for it.
I don't get what you're about with the scarcity argument. Everyone is free to write a novel or create software or whatever. I just want people who do the work to be in position to profit from it not someone who didn't do the work
Yes, money is important. Now, can you forget that? Put it aside and try to move on to a higher level of thought?
("No" is a perfectly acceptable answer that would satisfy my genuine curiosity)
People dislike copying because for most people it's an attack on their income, either by taking their recognition (eg copying "free" images from a photographer) or by actually taking their income (eg copying paid art).
If you exclude financial arguments you exclude the vast majority of people who share their work.
To bring this around to code, most popular licenses allow copying someone's code with proper attribution, so clearly copying is okay as long as you don't take recognition from a work that isn't profit motivated.
It seems pretty obvious to most people, that some artists would be unable to produce certain works of art, if they did not have the funding to pay their bills.
Why are you unable to understand this? Just engage with the argument.
No.
Because it is not an agument, it's a diversion, and an attempt to drag a much more complex and interesting debate into the long grass.
> It seems pretty obvious to most people, that some artists would be unable to produce certain works of art, if they did not have the funding to pay their bills.
You're correct. It is obvious. Indeed it's so boringly self-evident it precludes discussion. It's dull, maudlin, perennial and a pointless spiral down into lamentation of broken political and social systems that are utterly beneath the level at which I wish to engage.
Are you familiar with the expression "Never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"? That.
> Why are you unable to understand this?
I understand it perfectly. I'm just not interested in it.
> Just engage with the argument.
Your entitled indignation that I refuse to be dragged into the mud amuses me.
So then yes, you agree with everyone else completely, that many artists would be unable to produce certain art, if they were unable to make a living from it.
Great, you agree with everyone else entirely. Not sure why you would be so upset with everyone if you simply agree with everyone's main point, 100%.
> that I refuse to be dragged
You don't have to be dragged anywhere if you simply agree with the point, that you called obvious, which is that many artists could not produce work if they could not live off of it.
This doesn't have to be an argument. You just agree with them, and you called it obvious.
Our difference is that "artists" are driven by complex psychological and spiritual motives, way beyond money, which is a necessary but insufficient component of the artistic life. Some commenters don't like it when I say you're an accomplished craftsman but not a "real" artist if your preoccupation is with money. I can understand why that hurts, especially if one is besieged by brutal, empty capitalism and looming AI predating on your soul.
But I stand by this. And most of Art-history and the philosophy of art bears me out. And my point is that the artist who sacrifices (prostitutes) themselves on that altar of anomie and alienation is an accomplice in their misery - however strong the need to "put bread on the table". We are more than this.
So yes, you agree and think the point is obvious.
And now you are just moving the goal posts to something else, using a lot of words, in order to ignore the fact that you just agreed and said it was obvious.
To the downvoter, please do some free contract work for me. It causes you no loss.