Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

[LarpBait]

Because you can't charge for your labor if the product of that labor can be obtained for free

Just don't do work until you're paid? Is this really so hard for the copyrightcaca to understand?

Copyright exists to prevent unauthorized distribution of intellectual property because free distribution removes the monetary incentive, but that same protection also encourages the creation of new works and innovations

Hardly at all, many for-profit institutions exist around open source software and are capable of keeping the lights on. I don't see why we need an "incentive" mechanism that only serves to restrict information away from people and ruin lives when that restriction is "violated". It doesn't tangibly create better content as the current state of entertainment and the software industry makes clear and only serves to create monopolies and reduces competition and quality.

Above all that: I do not see how the failed business model of other people is my problem. Maybe they need to start charging for their labor instead of putting out data that anyone can copy for practically no cost.

. The Founding Fathers implemented copyright into the Constitution as legal doctrine specifically to encourage the growth of original works in the United States.

Yes and it was a mistake

No, we've always had an analogue for copyright, they were called guilds. You think that intellectual property was any more accessible under a guild system than under copyright? Let's go back to the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers.

You're just using the example of proto-copyright as an example of why we need copyright, that its somehow "superior" to people than its originating point. Isn't that the institution that literally gave copyright its namesake by granting "rights to copy" works? It's the same shit as what we have now, I don't see how this is a tangible argument.

That's not how copyright works nor is it its purpose, you're twisting the facts to meet the premise.

computers have reduced the cost of copying to nothing, in any other industry where the lowering of cost of business removes the need for other businesses, the industry is let to fall. The intention of copyright does not matter compared to its actual use.

Yet those same car companies make use of trademarks, patents and copyright to protect their brands, engineering and vehicle designs.

And that's bad, I don't want that. Why mention that? Outside of trademarks (which shouldn't even be in discussion, that's a fraud prevention mechanism), patents and copyright only serve to hurt the customers by lowering the amount of competition in the market. If you can't keep up with the market, how is that my problem?

They certainly tried. The US implemented red flag laws when cars first started appearing there, which required a man to walk in front of a car with a red flag to warn people it was coming. This restricted the utility of the car for what should be obvious reasons. This was a protectionist law at the behest of several groups, including farriers and other horse-related trades. These laws eventually evolved into the road safety laws that are still in use today.

very interesting historically, thankfully the protectionist laws changed away from just being a way for companies to grantee revenue at the expense of the customer towards laws that value public safety so that people are not physically injured