Free speech is free data; free data is free speech.

[Explodicle]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

[westkybitcoins]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Well, presuming there would be some art that would just be considered too objectionable to be funded by the public, I would think this would tend to politicize art.

[Explodicle]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Well, presuming there would be some art that would just be considered too objectionable to be funded by the public, I would think this would tend to politicize art.

Probably. It's certainly not perfect, but I'd rather be forced to pay for terrible offensive garbage than not be allowed to spread something beautiful and brilliant.

[P4man]

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Ive said it all along; the only feasible way to abolish property rights is by massively expanding the government to take over  these kind of things that are in society interest, but not profitable without IP protection. that goes for all kinds of R&D, music, arts etc.

You die hard libertarians really want the government to do that?

[Explodicle]

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Ive said it all along; the only feasible way to abolish property rights is by massively expanding the government to take over  these kind of things that are in society interest, but not profitable without IP protection. that goes for all kinds of R&D, music, arts etc.

You die hard libertarians really want the government to do that?

I'm a left-libertarian. I don't object to taxes on public resources (land, air pollution permits, etc) to pay for public goods.

[bb113]

An important question for any social theory to ask itself:

Would this have allowed Star Trek to exist?

Anyway, I think most good art is produced before the artist gets big. The best artists will make it as a hobby because they enjoy doing it. As an example of extravagant art, I wonder if amon tobin has this protected as IP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU8v_zZV5GM&feature=related

[Explodicle]

An important question for any social theory to ask itself:

Would this have allowed Star Trek to exist?

Absolutely. Gene patents might be useful in enforcing the widespread genetic discrimination. We can't just allow the Julian Bashirs of the world to have "superior ambition", can we?

[DoubleIcaras]

I don't even understand how people who have no idea what they're being told can decide the fate of something so many use.
It's ridiculous.

[bb113]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

[Explodicle]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

Lack of IP = free speech
Government funding to the arts would provide a public good WITHOUT stripping away an essential human right.

[kokjo]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

Lack of IP = free speech
Government funding to the arts would provide a public good WITHOUT stripping away an essential human right.

depends on how it's funded. some say that taxes is an act of stripping away essential human right, you know?

[altuin]

We are allowed to say whatever we want, but the government is allowed to decide who can listen - EG porn restrictions.

[Explodicle]

@SgtSpike

Music can only be created so well on a volunteer basis.

Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven created great pieces without copyright. 

They were for the most part, paid by
... governments.

That's a good point. It might be more efficient to just *gasp* fund the arts directly by governments. Yes, there is a subjective element and there would be some rent-seeking corruption, but at least it would allow us free speech while still providing enough intellectual goodies.

Government funded art= Free speech? Or did I misunderstand?

Lack of IP = free speech
Government funding to the arts would provide a public good WITHOUT stripping away an essential human right.

depends on how it's funded. some say that taxes is an act of stripping away essential human right, you know?

I know that some people say that, but people say lots of crazy nonsense and I'm glad you haven't bought into it. Some taxes, like sales taxes, are wrong. Taxes against aggression are justified.