You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense.
> If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society.
Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account.
It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society.
> By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property
Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.
The normal sense of 'need' is that a person will die without something. You might be thiking of the word 'want'.
You keep saying 'the world does not owe you a living' as though it means something relevant to this discussion.
What gives you the right to decide what duties and actions damage society? I think you are damaging society by trying to destroy developers rights over the software they create.
The normal sense of ‘need’ is as in “I’m going shopping, I need milk.”.
What does and does not damage society is certainly open for discussion. But when you frame it as “developers’ rights over the software they create” you are presupposing the conclusion. Why should ideas and other non-rivalrous goods be considered property? If I “own” an idea that you have a copy of, why should this give me power over you?
I am not presupposing the conclusion. I recognize that developer's rights are artificial. I also recognize that money is artificial as are all property rights.
The reason software as a non-rivalrous good should be considered property is because we value the creative output of individuals, and recognize that it takes individual time and investment to add value to the world through this art. In doing so, we are valuing and incentivizing creativity and ingenuity rather than clock hours of work.
Price competition can take care of making the fruits of this creativity widely available to those who want it.
This all sounds good, but it is very theoretical. Let’s look at the more practical effects. As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks. So what do we gain to potentially offset these drawbacks? Note that these gains would have to be things we would actually lose if creative output of individuals would cease to have property status. Finally, are these gains large enough to overcome the drawbacks?
Furthermore, there are many who argue that, should the creative output of individuals cease to have limits on their dissemination and use, society would gain more than enough to offset any potential drawback of this. It could also be argued that the cost would be entirely transitional, i.e. people would have to get used to new business models and move to different ways of doing business, and there would be otherwise no actual continuous loss by making the creative output of individuals non-owned.
This isn't meaningful - you have simply affirmed the consequent: "As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks."
I know this is your belief, but you haven't offered any argument to support it.
You also dismissed what I said out of hand, with the phrase 'This all sounds good but it's theoretical', which is also false on the face of it since it is the current state of affairs and has produced tangible results.
I know what you believe. I just don't think you have a coherent argument for it.
I would rather not argue specifics, but instead get you and people in general to understand what the argument is, and to get people to honestly investigate whether the cost is worth the drawbacks.
I called your reply “theoretical” because it talked about principles, not about what society would gain or lose with any available options, without which no cost-benefit analysis can be made. Are you wedded to the idea that the principle should outweigh all downsides in this case? How much would you be willing for this principle to cost society?
Have you not considered the possibility that many people here actually do already understand what the argument is, and have already investigated the costs and drawbacks for themselves?
If so, it seems as though you're simply hiding a position that you're not willing to defend.
I sincerely doubt they have done so with the same thoroughness as in the references I gave. Anyway, the original question (which started this thread) was by cscurmudgeon: “I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?” I was not, I think, disingenuous in laying out the argument for people who, similarly to cscurmudgeon, had not grasped the argument for the other side.
You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense.
> If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society.
Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account.
It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society.
> By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property
Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.