>> So if you write a book, and sell it for $20, and I make a copy of your book and sell it for $10, you are ok with this?
If I make a hammer, and sell it for $20, and the person I sell it to uses it to make more hammers that he sells for $10, are you okay with this?
Your question shows a shallowness of thinking. What is a book? Did you come up with 100% of the words in the book? If not, are you tracking down and compensating all the people who invented the words you used (or their ancestors?). What about the letters? Let's talk about the machinery you used to print the book. Are you providing a "royalty" to the printing press manufacturer?
The problem with me wasting my time is that your question is so basic and shows such lack of thought that I can't distinguish whether you are being genuine or are a paid shill by the (c)opywrong regime out there muddying the waters. And yes, there are a tremendous amount of paid shills out there spreading false and dishonest information about (c)opywrongs.
Hammers require physical materials to reproduce. (Aside: there’s nothing in current IP law that precludes a profit by the manufacturer on my physical tool design. A patented design just means I can charge for a license to manufacture my design.)
Back to digital books: how does an author get paid for writing when there’s no legal protection for his work? It costs nothing for any customer to forward along copies. Without laws to allow a temporary monopoly, the author might see a few sales. Pricing one’s time for so few sales (ergo higher prices) will inevitably encourage further free copying. In a society of capitalism, where would the motivation to create (and iterate, and hone) come from without a monopoly on copying?
If the naysayers of IP laws want to advocate for a different, non-capitalist paradigm, that’s fine. But the lack of intellectual rigor behind the “eliminate IP laws” argument isn’t everyone else’s fault when they fail to make it convincing.
> how does an author get paid for writing when there’s no legal protection for his work?
How do cotton farm owners make money if they have to pay their employees? Saying we need (c)opywrong laws to have creative content is like saying we need slavery to have cotton. It's just completely false and absurd.
And yet again you fail to explain. Labor laws make sure employees get paid. It's the farmer's job to price his product with his own margin in it.
So how does this apply to creative digital artists? Are you suggesting that they all need to be employed by someone else? How does THAT person make money on the digital product?
Seems to me you don't have a completely formed thought around this entire concept and therefore can't explain.
The United States government employs more knowledge workers than all other companies (see NIH, DoD, CDC, NASA, NOAA, NWS, et cetera). Everything they produce is public domain, by law. And yet, they still get paid!
You are arguing for slavery on behalf of slaveowners. We don't need slavery. We still have cotton even after the 13th Amendment (we actually have more and better cotton now), and we will still have creative works after the passing of the Intellectual Freedom Amendment (we actually will have more and better creative works). You are on the wrong side of history.
