• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s a good argument because artificially constraining the supply to simulate “monetary value” destroys most of the actual value it could have by being available to everyone. The “protection” is a harmful kludge that only has to exist because we insist on making everyone measure their value with the market.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t think that tracks though. If we all lived in universal basic income world I don’t think the idea of copyright would be given up. People would still want to be compensated for their work, universal basic income doesn’t get rid of capitalism, it just gets rid of the less desirable aspects of it.

      We would still have money but it would change in its nature. Instead of needing it in order to survive you would simply need it in order to improve your lot above whatever base level the theoretical society decided on. You would still need copyright to enforce your right to compensation and prevent others from taking credit for your work.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        To me copyright is one of the more undesirable aspects of capitalism, for the reason I mentioned. I don’t think you really have a right to prosecute people for copying, repurposing and remixing the stuff you’ve made just so you can personally profit, that would be just selfishness if it wasn’t something of a necessary evil to make sure creators can have a way to survive.