The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn't, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.
that's doesn't follow
Idk what to tell you but: Yes it does. We can't really argue if you refuse to elaborate your point.
when you drive over a bridge, do you tip the engineering form? the contractors? they're the ones who created this experience for you.
I pay taxes, those were used to pay the people who build the bridge. And yes, taxes should be fair. If it's a private bridge then the owners have every right to demand a fee for crossing it.
not the owners: the designers. what if I copy the bridge and put it in my front yard: do you think I owe royalties to the engineering firm?
Yes, of course. They created the design, it cost them time and money, you want to use it, so you should pay part of those costs. Or to put it differently: You both use the design, why should they be the ones to pay for its creation, and not you?
they still have the design. I haven't taken something from them. I don't owe them anything.
Who says you can only owe something if you take something away first?
Think about how rent works. The building or appartement will still be there, loose value over time and need repairs whether you live there or not, yet you still owe the owner rent if you do.
your might owe under almost any circumstance, but almost all of them have to drop with a mutually agreed contract or transfer of property. what circumstance do you think created the debt here? and what if someone walks across my front yard bridge? do they owe the engineers too? it's just silly.
This is going into feasability and away from morality, but ok.
The law is the "mutually agreed contract", and the usage created the dept. You can be expected to know that the design of a bridge might be copyrighted, you can't be expected to know that a bridge is private property and crossing it requires a fee. Ergo it's on you to contact the owner of the design, and it's on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.
Ergo it's on you to contact the owner of the design, and it's on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.
why?
Because of the sentence before the one you quoted. I'm sorry, but this is getting silly.
rent is immoral
No it's not. Why should someone let you stay in a building they payed and/or worked for, without you paying for a share of the upkeep, repairs, insurance etc., and the fact that the building exists in the first place?!
if you feel like rent as it currently exists even vaguely approximates the kind of model you claim you haven't been paying attention. rent is, at its core, having other people pay for something because you own it. landlords are infamous for not paying for upkeep and repairs. the incentives behind owning property that other people live in lead to bad outcomes for people who can't afford to own.
I'm talking about rent in principle, not how it is often perverted today. You can make just about anything immoral if you add price gauging and not-fulfilling-contractual-obligations to it. There are a lot of rents with fair prices, e.g. almost everything that's not housing, but also apartments from social housing or housing associations.
Yes, you do, in the form of buying gas or paying taxes. You don't even have to use the bridge to have to pay for it.
so use isn't tied to paying. one has nothing to do with the other.
It depends on the system. In taxes, yes. Use isn't tied to paying. In consumer goods and services, they are not paid by taxes. So they do have a direct use/buy causation.
no, they don't: people make things without being paid all the time.
The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn't, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.
that's doesn't follow
Idk what to tell you but: Yes it does. We can't really argue if you refuse to elaborate your point.
when you drive over a bridge, do you tip the engineering form? the contractors? they're the ones who created this experience for you.
I pay taxes, those were used to pay the people who build the bridge. And yes, taxes should be fair. If it's a private bridge then the owners have every right to demand a fee for crossing it.
not the owners: the designers. what if I copy the bridge and put it in my front yard: do you think I owe royalties to the engineering firm?
Yes, of course. They created the design, it cost them time and money, you want to use it, so you should pay part of those costs. Or to put it differently: You both use the design, why should they be the ones to pay for its creation, and not you?
they still have the design. I haven't taken something from them. I don't owe them anything.
Who says you can only owe something if you take something away first?
Think about how rent works. The building or appartement will still be there, loose value over time and need repairs whether you live there or not, yet you still owe the owner rent if you do.
your might owe under almost any circumstance, but almost all of them have to drop with a mutually agreed contract or transfer of property. what circumstance do you think created the debt here? and what if someone walks across my front yard bridge? do they owe the engineers too? it's just silly.
This is going into feasability and away from morality, but ok.
The law is the "mutually agreed contract", and the usage created the dept. You can be expected to know that the design of a bridge might be copyrighted, you can't be expected to know that a bridge is private property and crossing it requires a fee. Ergo it's on you to contact the owner of the design, and it's on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.
why?
Because of the sentence before the one you quoted. I'm sorry, but this is getting silly.
rent is immoral
No it's not. Why should someone let you stay in a building they payed and/or worked for, without you paying for a share of the upkeep, repairs, insurance etc., and the fact that the building exists in the first place?!
if you feel like rent as it currently exists even vaguely approximates the kind of model you claim you haven't been paying attention. rent is, at its core, having other people pay for something because you own it. landlords are infamous for not paying for upkeep and repairs. the incentives behind owning property that other people live in lead to bad outcomes for people who can't afford to own.
I'm talking about rent in principle, not how it is often perverted today. You can make just about anything immoral if you add price gauging and not-fulfilling-contractual-obligations to it. There are a lot of rents with fair prices, e.g. almost everything that's not housing, but also apartments from social housing or housing associations.
private property is theft.
And you are accusing me of not properly supporting my claims??
Yes, you do, in the form of buying gas or paying taxes. You don't even have to use the bridge to have to pay for it.
so use isn't tied to paying. one has nothing to do with the other.
It depends on the system. In taxes, yes. Use isn't tied to paying. In consumer goods and services, they are not paid by taxes. So they do have a direct use/buy causation.
no, they don't: people make things without being paid all the time.