How can we control the internet to make Activity Y profitable?
Suggesting folks engaged in Activity Y figure it out is not an acceptable response.
I can't help but feel this is a false dilemma. What about Activity A B and C that aren't profitable? Shouldn't we care about the proliferation and development of all these activities? Furthermore, maybe folks engaging in Activity Y should just evolve and adopt to the modern climate of the digital age. See GNU/Linux.
It's a strawman argument, since there are two components here. First, it's hard to make a living as a writer, perhaps your just not good enough or only appeal to a small part of the population. Secondly your right to get paid for your work. The second part doesn't go away simply because making a living as a writer is hard.
Yes, it does in fact. It isn't society's responsibility to make writing profitable. Just because the internet et al are making it harder to make a living as a writer doesn't mean we have any responsibility to turn around and make it easier.
It isn't society's responsibility to make writing profitable.
Society rewards everything that benefits itself (at least the society i have agreed to live into). For example it rewards good scientific research because it makes everyone more productive and happier. I believe it has a good reason to make it profitable for writers to write good books too.
Let me amend it to say it isn't _necessarily_ society's responsibility to make writing profitable, and from what I've seen enough good writing gets done without being profitable that the distinction between professional writer and serious amateur writer is no longer meaningful.
If we wanted to help inventors we'd help inventors. If people found a started using a new thing we'd track it back and reward the creator, those who popularized it, teachers, etc. And we'd make education free.
But instead we have a system that, if you pay a large (to individuals) fee, and file a ton of complex paperwork, may be persuaded to give you the monopoly right to sue people who used 'your' idea even if they independently invented it. But you're responsible for hiring lawyers to persuade the court to give you the money we supposedly ruled you have a right to. The court won't help by investigating the issue but can be easily convinced to issue crippling restraining orders, an action more likely to kill the accused witch than prove her innocence. No rewards for inventors, but here's a club and license to use it for extortion.
We could reward inventors, instead we reward lawyers. Specifically lawyers who cheat inventors. Patents, and copyrights, are a huge negative force on society. We need to get rid of them or we'll be eaten alive by groups who did.
It's society's responsibility to enforce the laws, this isn't a discussion about internet per se, it's not excluded from the laws of the society. Other phenomenons are also thriving on the internet like credit card frauds. By your logic this isn't society's responsibility either, we simply have to accept the current state and adapt.
The point is whether such laws should exist or not, not if they should be enforced.
The fact that without such laws some activities are unprofitable is not a reason to keep those laws, unless you think we should ban email to avoid layoffs of post office worker. Or ban Netflix to avoid losing jobs in video rentals.
Absolutely, and this is my point as well. If you read the post I responded to it should be clear I think. That is, if you believe in the theoretical basis of the law, then the internet does not change that fact.
Activity Y is not profitable.
How can we control the internet to make Activity Y profitable?
Suggesting folks engaged in Activity Y figure it out is not an acceptable response.
I can't help but feel this is a false dilemma. What about Activity A B and C that aren't profitable? Shouldn't we care about the proliferation and development of all these activities? Furthermore, maybe folks engaging in Activity Y should just evolve and adopt to the modern climate of the digital age. See GNU/Linux.