"The point that he raises by stating the fact that for most of the history of human art, people have not been paid to create art is not one to be overlooked."
I find this point meaningless. For most of human history a lot of things happened - for example
1) Slavery was normal
2) People were ruled by monarchies
3) Countries were constantly fighting each other
More to the point, we simply lacked the mechanism for 'normal people' (ie not nobles) to pay a small percent of their disposable income for art. Instead church & rich people picked up the slack and employed artists.
I think the point here is not so much about Intellectual Property as such, but about modes of distribution. Writers have been selling books for a couple hundred years - and nobody is complaining. We are comfortable buying books. But for media content the model is just not there yet. But let's talk about that - instead of attacking IP as such.
I find this point meaningless. For most of human history a lot of things happened - for example 1) Slavery was normal 2) People were ruled by monarchies 3) Countries were constantly fighting each other
More to the point, we simply lacked the mechanism for 'normal people' (ie not nobles) to pay a small percent of their disposable income for art. Instead church & rich people picked up the slack and employed artists.
I think the point here is not so much about Intellectual Property as such, but about modes of distribution. Writers have been selling books for a couple hundred years - and nobody is complaining. We are comfortable buying books. But for media content the model is just not there yet. But let's talk about that - instead of attacking IP as such.