[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

This argument is not very convincing regarding fiction.

I have found that my life/wordlview has been significantly changed by a number of fictional books that I have read. One might argue that the difference between fiction and nonfiction is very very slim as well. In fact it is fun to argue that

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Yes, it is easier to copy and transmit data. That in no way implies that we should have every book for free. That is like saying that we should have free airplane tickets, because travel has become so much cheaper and faster.

WHAT money? If text aren't sold, where does the money come from?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Giggleton's obsession with money is because he would rather take something for free than put some effort into making some money. The old "trying to get something for nothing" scam.

I wouldn't say travel has become cheaper, but if we do figure out teleportation ala startrek, with the energy required obtained from the sun, do you think it would be right to charge people for their transportation needs? Taking this thinking backwards to the present day, do you think it is right to charge the individual for a ride on a public transportation system, (energy required for everything is supplied by the sun after all) Wouldn't it make more sense to charge the public for the system and allow everyone to ride as much as they wish to, funds for the system given by raising the tax rate for the transportation system??

I also would not say I have an obsession with money, I might have an obsession with thinking about ways that the our society could work without money...

But why do you feel that the purpose of writing books is to make money? Isn't the purpose of writing to let others share in the thoughts that you have had?? Any block to this end is WRONG. If you are writing books to put food on the table, why don't you just go outside and plant some carrots instead?

You have to believe that our culture will not let the most important (important being a subjective and flexible view) artists languish in hovels with nothing to eat. By not allowing creators to set prices of content on the network, the culture as a whole will be able to more adequately determine which artists should be compensated, this compensation would of course be in the hopes of a future art of the same caliber.

Money could be taken from an art fund, supported through taxes. Perhaps a bit of the defense budget could be moved toward this fund, and perhaps a few of those working in the defense department could then become artists, but that might just be wishful thinking...