[atoav]

How much worse of a world would you be willing to accept if it being worse gave you the slim chance that you'd profit a small bit longer if you ever had success?

Would you close public libraries if you believed it gave you a 3% profit increase when you do so? (In fact having a library opened will generate more readers, so more customers will be buying you book even if some can rent it for essentially free).

These are not a trick questions, they are the actual ethical questions at play here — and the reason you are being downvoted.

As a European it is also crystal clear that this kind of thinking is the root of most major social problems the US is experiencing for decades now (in comparison to nearly all other similar wealthy nations). The US would be in a much more economically sustainable place now if it wasn't for the constant "privatize gains socialize losses"-game.

[barrysteve]

It doesn't matter what hypothetical profit I could make. I didn't dream of fat stacks of cash and then derived the desire to write.

I should (and do) have the right to prevent pilfering of my work. Or more accurately, forced inclusion into a system of pilfering, not just one thief taking to afford bread, but tens/thousands/hundreds of thousands doing the same, together.

I love the option to include my work on the web, in a library, ect. But to do so against my choice is beyond the pale.

I love the option to keep things exclusive and electively publish.

I write for my own reasons. I get it, the son makes abundant life for all, and the thief destroys all. I agree with the 'book' that states that truth.

Putting concepts and ideas on the web or in public access is not a clear cut win, and some ideas need decades of work to mature before they are both palatable to the public and also kept away from systematic rewrites and revisions, kept away from making a bad first impression on customers, ect , ect.

There are many many examples of works being repossesed and edited against their original intent on the web, we saw it happen to Roald Dahl recently, JK Rowling is probably next.

Why would I write harry potter if I was not motivated by money and also knew that a beaurcracy in a foriegn country was going to erase Hermoine from my books.

I'd keep my work completely out of reach, and profit less, and retain control.

Because guess what, at the end of the day, some people like Einstein, Newton, Dickens, Twain, ect would consider the work they created to be meaningful in-and-of itself. And someone who sacrifices for decades to make such a work, would rather protect it, than prostitute their beliefs for economic gain!

I mean come on, we all have notice the drop in quality of works produced and then we defend the perverse anti-incentives we have in place.

The best way to have your cake and eat it, is to actually have your cake and eat it.

Incentivize the best work to be created and then protect it once it exists. In that ideal world, who cares if people don't pay? As long as the freedom to create and deploy or retract is unimpeded, then quality works can exist.