[etaweb]

Intellectual property is not all about arts and extends beyond it.

> To throw out intellectual property is to throw out art itself.

Art is older than intellectual property.

"To throw out intellectual property" wouldn't stop anybody to continue making art, it would at most challenge the way we build an economy around it.

[WendyTheWillow]

Throwing out intellectual property absolutely would stop the vast majority of the art made today from being made. We've had an explosion of art once we entered into an understanding that the creators of a work have control over how that work is used. Getting rid of that would kill film, television, and music. Would people still make these things? Yes. But not nearly at the quality or quantity we see today.

[justinclift]

> But not nearly at the quality or quantity we see today.

Finally you've raised what could be an interesting point. :)

Is there usefulness in the quantity of film / television / music being created today?

Would we be better off as a society if there was... less?

Maybe turning off the fountain of crap would be an improvement? :)

[WendyTheWillow]

No, that's not an interesting point because the obvious answer is yes, more art is generally better than less art.

Either way, it's not up to you to decide utility arbitrarily. Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place? The problem is that people want the art too much, and are willing to break the social contract in order to obtain it.

[justinclift]

> the obvious answer is yes

That's a bold claim. My opinion is different though.

> Besides, if the art is bad, why are you pirating it in the first place?

Why are you accusing me of doing so? Are you basing it upon my not having the same viewpoint as you?