|
Mmmm - let me see if I understand it.
Creative people should create for nothing for the benefit of non-creative people. Actors act for free, playwrights write for free, performances be put on for free, movie crews work unpaid using free equipment and supplies provided free, to make movies delivered for free and shown for free in, I assume, theatres donated by kindly zillionaires as a hobby, or on DVDs supplied free by volunteer manufacturers, or over free broadband by generous ISPs who do it for free using free equipment, no doubt eat free food too, drive cars they got for free--
Knowledge like anything else is a creation of human endeavour, and since the acquisition of knowledge, however abstruse, is often tortuous and time consuming, and its creator needs to eat and live while creating, somebody, somewhere has to pay for it. This has been so since our ancestors were painting animals in deep caves, or chipping hand axes.
The mantra that "knowledge wants to be free" is the slogan of the parasite, and also the ignorant.
"Knowledge" has no wants or needs. The people who create it, however, do have.
Copyright, while by no means perfect, is the current means of ensuring that creators of knowledge - eg writers - can actually exist to create. If there's a better one, it's not state support.
After all, that's not free either.
Having the government or whoever paying for "knowledge" to be "free" simply means taking money out of my pocket to give to someone else. I end up having to pay for "knowledge" that I have never heard of and don't want, for the benefit of someone else, instead of only paying for those things I do want, for the benefit of myself, which I'm happy to do.
|