[marssaxman]

Of course they can. Step 1: institute a basic income for authors and artists. Step 2: abolish copyright laws.

(To simplify step 1, you could skip the thorny problem of defining who an "author" or an "artist" is by instituting a universal basic income.)

[hunter2_]

But then attempts at supplementing that basic income with additional income -- i.e., gainful (self-)employment -- won't include being an author or artist. People wanting to do those things would be incentivised to do other things instead. People interested in living on exclusively the basic income while watching most other people live on that plus optional income would be few, I think.

[nerdbert]

You don't think anyone would hire a band to play an event, or a muralist to paint a wall?

[hunter2_]

Yes, but I meant people primarily interested in making things that are readily copyable. We can just as easily say being interested in that is an obsolete mindset without also saying basic income goes hand-in-hand.

[wahnfrieden]

step 1 can encompass all people. lots of people with idle time choose to do art and not only for profit, this is very common and many of our valued cultural products have come from those kind of conditions (which no longer exist like they did in places such as england).

[swarnie]

> Step 2: abolish copyright laws.

I thought we were talking about viable societies?

How can you expect any form of R&D investment if the investor can't expect to see an ROI? Sounds great if you want to stagnate but personally i dont.

[marssaxman]

Are you perhaps thinking about patents?

If not, could you explain where you see a connection between copyright and R&D?

[wahnfrieden]

you're repeating political rhetoric saying that advancement is exclusively achievable through capitalist investment. and no i'm not talking about communism either.