You seem to be conflating believing that a distinction exists (which it obviously does) with believing that it is acceptable. I believe the former but not the latter.
Your position however is one I don’t understand, as it effectively argues that people can produce words to be paid for, but only if they derive them from non-free works.
Please stop flattening ‘specific free works vs amorphous mass of cultural inspirations’ to ‘public domain vs copyright’. You’re arguing against a straw man here. What makes a difference is the specific (and the implicit ‘with conscious intent’) vs the amorphous. The ‘mass of cultural inspirations’ has enough free works in it.
If such a position became law...
I never argued for that. Many things are better enforced by social norms than by law.
You seem to be doing it the other way around, which seems inconsistent for what the words “free” and “non-free” actually mean.
Caspian notes the existence of sharealike licences. It’s not some radical new incomprehensible idea, it’s an old way to keep the ‘free’ meme propagating. There is no contradiction in imposing restrictions upon future authors to ensure that future readers keep getting free stuff.
Future profit seekers couldn’t even begin a work based wholly on public domain ideas, they would have to seek the patronage of a previous copyright-holder.
This is only tangentially related, but people keep bringing it up so I better address this. I’m not opposing making a profit, I’m opposing making a profit by asking the readers to pay a fee in order to gain access to the work. The two may generally be seen as the same thing, but they really aren’t. (Said the same thing in reply to another comment on this thread right now.)
You seem to be conflating believing that a distinction exists (which it obviously does) with believing that it is acceptable. I believe the former but not the latter.
Please stop flattening ‘specific free works vs amorphous mass of cultural inspirations’ to ‘public domain vs copyright’. You’re arguing against a straw man here. What makes a difference is the specific (and the implicit ‘with conscious intent’) vs the amorphous. The ‘mass of cultural inspirations’ has enough free works in it.
I never argued for that. Many things are better enforced by social norms than by law.
Caspian notes the existence of sharealike licences. It’s not some radical new incomprehensible idea, it’s an old way to keep the ‘free’ meme propagating. There is no contradiction in imposing restrictions upon future authors to ensure that future readers keep getting free stuff.
This is only tangentially related, but people keep bringing it up so I better address this. I’m not opposing making a profit, I’m opposing making a profit by asking the readers to pay a fee in order to gain access to the work. The two may generally be seen as the same thing, but they really aren’t. (Said the same thing in reply to another comment on this thread right now.)