6 ms·

I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating the facts. As technology has progressed, it has meant that instead of very few producers and millions of consumers o

I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating the facts. As technology has progressed, it has meant that instead of very few producers and millions of consumers of 'content', now everyone produces content. That means the value of 'content' has drastically reduced to the point that it's almost worthless for some areas. This is progress, and you can't stop it. Of course art is valuable, as it has always been. But as stated elsewhere, there are a billion pictures of a sunset online... supply far outstrips demand. And yes, as a programmer, you can either work to keep your source code secret, or you can provide software as a service, charge for support, or any number of other monetization options. But you can't really sell open source software without some reason for people to buy it.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
But surely the whole point of that glut of content is that you don't need his image, not that you should be able to take it without his permission? As you say, there are thousands of sunset images, probably thousands under, say, a CC or free license. That means you can use them, not that you can declare his image is worthless and use it. In terms of can copy therefore, should be allowed to copy, that just changes the potential nature of the contract that exists. With physical goods there was a barrier to copying, but there are plenty of situations in society where what governs our behaviour isn't what we can do, it's what we all (or a vast majority of us) have agreed to do because we believe that is in our mutual best interest. The fact it's easy to copy things means the potential for change exists and the mechanisms whereby restrictions are enforced may change, but it doesn't mean that in the future can copy will automatically mean is permitted to copy by society. Yes, you can't stop progress, but the direction of progress is still unclear.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

But surely the whole point of that glut of content is that you don't need his image, not that you should be able to take it without his permission? As you say, there are thousands of sunset images, probably thousands under, say, a CC or free license. That means you can use them, not that you can declare his image is worthless and use it. In terms of can copy therefore, should be allowed to copy, that just changes the potential nature of the contract that exists. With physical goods there was a barrier to copying, but there are plenty of situations in society where what governs our behaviour isn't what we can do, it's what we all (or a vast majority of us) have agreed to do because we believe that is in our mutual best interest. The fact it's easy to copy things means the potential for change exists and the mechanisms whereby restrictions are enforced may change, but it doesn't mean that in the future can copy will automatically mean is permitted to copy by society. Yes, you can't stop progress, but the direction of progress is still unclear.