> we need to incentivize them to get said valuable information.
Why should that incentive take form of making information a product?
"just provide knowledge out of thr good of your heart" is a gross misrepresentation of what the person before said, and you even quote the passage indicating as much.
It seems like you're trying to portray the problem as a dichotomy: "product" vs "goodness of heart". That other ways pose problems doesn't mean much. The current side of the false dichotomy causes problems as in the OP.
>It seems like you're trying to portray the problem as a dichotomy: "product" vs "goodness of heart". That other ways pose problems doesn't mean much. The current side of the false dichotomy causes problems as in the OP.
Their suggestions last people who "just want to deny it happens" and their solution is to just let the government pay for it (spoilers: it's allready subsidized), so I don't exactly understand why you think I'm establishing a dictonimy.
Yes. People are unironically arguing to simply abolish copyright. It's an extreme solution and I disagree. I haven't heard many good moderate solutions out there because people are so pro-piracy that I'm inclined to think they don't care about the people behind novel ideas, just benefiting off their work. You get tit for tat with that sort of thinking.
I have moderate ideas, but as I've learned moderate tales fade to the extremities if you aren't even slightly aligned. We're very disaligned here, so the starting step to to show why that extreme take is bad and work from there.
Now that I never said the current system is fine. Because that's not my argument, nor the one the other extreme take needs to hear. But if that's all you got from my chain I suppose I need to do the same thing with you.
Why did you react to "but people need to survive" with "well it NEEDS to be a product"? Compensation comes in many ways, and I was simply saying that the government has historically been horrible at compensating most parts of any industry. What makes this time with books different?
>>Why should we turn information into a "product"[...]
> Because [...]
That clearly indicates that you're in fact advocating it to be a product. Perhaps I misunderstood your post, but then I'm afraid you're not making yourself very clear. I'm also not seeing any references to survival in your post, just of incentivizing where work goes, so I am fairly certain what you think you write is not what you actually write.
I've gotten 15 other responses and the ideas I write and respond to inevitably blend together. So I apologize if I make some assumptions based on statements from other parts of the post that I have answered.
Regardless, I am a huge fan of the devil's advocate. You can talk about points without them being your complete world view. That's the assumption that we seem misaligned with. Just because I don't want all information to be free the moment it is published (or stolen) doesn't mean I want to abolish copyright.
Why should that incentive take form of making information a product?
"just provide knowledge out of thr good of your heart" is a gross misrepresentation of what the person before said, and you even quote the passage indicating as much.
It seems like you're trying to portray the problem as a dichotomy: "product" vs "goodness of heart". That other ways pose problems doesn't mean much. The current side of the false dichotomy causes problems as in the OP.