It's hard to tell whether this was intended seriously, but if so you totally missed the point of the parent post.
No, musicians don't enforce the rights that some of them claim. Those who do believe in copyright rely on a third party. Uncle Sam, let's say, has a preponderance of coercive force and demands payments according to the terms set by copyright holders. (Note: the copyright holders, for many generations now, have been mostly not the creators, but a middle-man industry that has hijacked copyright law to exploit other people's creations.)
The GP post is pointing out that this situation is inconsistent with libertarian/free-market principles. For intellectual property to be consistent with such principles, a musician would have to a contract with each customer, like "I'll sell you this copy if you agree not to give a copy to anyone else". Even then, a deal-breaker might transfer a copy to an innocent third party and that person might not have any obligation to refrain from sharing.
There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate.
And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content.
>> There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate. And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content.
No, musicians don't enforce the rights that some of them claim. Those who do believe in copyright rely on a third party. Uncle Sam, let's say, has a preponderance of coercive force and demands payments according to the terms set by copyright holders. (Note: the copyright holders, for many generations now, have been mostly not the creators, but a middle-man industry that has hijacked copyright law to exploit other people's creations.)
The GP post is pointing out that this situation is inconsistent with libertarian/free-market principles. For intellectual property to be consistent with such principles, a musician would have to a contract with each customer, like "I'll sell you this copy if you agree not to give a copy to anyone else". Even then, a deal-breaker might transfer a copy to an innocent third party and that person might not have any obligation to refrain from sharing.
There's no reason that creators "shouldn't get paid for" their efforts, but to show that they are entitled to enforce such a claim, with the force of government, you have to show that the laws providing for such an arrangement are legitimate.
And to show that, you have to argue either (a) that intellectual property is a natural right or (b) that everyone is obligated to obey whatever laws the government chooses to make, regardless of their content.