[LINK] MEAA tells Creative Commons to get f**ed

[Brendan Scott]

Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> Brendan Scott [brendansweb at optusnet.com.au] wrote:
> 
>>I don't see what the relevance of progressive taxes is. Even if I could 
>>work that out, I also don't see how your response relates to what I have 
>>said.

[Absence of explanation of relevance of reference to progressive taxes omitted]


>>>>The only time when these costs approach zero is where b and c are well 
>>>>defined and broadly understood.  
>>>
>>>bingo. welcome to the future. you have solved your own objections.
>>>you can extrapolate the rest.
>>
>>Well, I don't follow you.
> 
> going too fast for you are we? there is that creativity thing again.

[Pale imitation of condescension and variation of absence of explanation omitted]


> <...wait patiently...>
> 
> still strugling? let me spell it out for you.

[Demonstration that you don't, or choose not to, understand my point omitted]


Rather than acknowledging the issue and claiming it is not significant, you assert that it does not even qualify as an issue.  Given that it's a variation of the themes which form the backbone of economics it is interesting that you choose not to recognise it. 


>>Look you're confusing me.  
> 
> look grasshoper, when you can take the stones from my hand...

I'm just thankful you didn't make reference to some other book that you assert proves everything. 


> quite the contrary. people are incentivised to reach their "full economic
> potential" precisely because of restricted use of "content".
> 
> simply because it gives them no alternative other then exerting some creative muscle
> to find a non blocked alternative.

Are you serious? 


Let me clarify: Are you saying that by increasing restrictions incentivisation increases?  
I have to say this strikes me as patently absurd (Incentivisation is maximised when no one can do anything)


> it is not different to you whining about not being able to reach your full 
> economic potential, because you are not being allowed to cross a  bit of land to reach
> your destination, because someone has a "government subsidised monopoly"
> called land title which expressily forbids you from using said bit of dirt without
> permission.

No, I'm talking about what happens when I buy the land, not when I buy the block next door. Not surprisingly, when I buy the land I can do what I like with it.  


[Further extrapolation of incorrect conflation of different concepts, and reference to whining like a 4 year old omitted]


[Comment about flying lawyers and land title omitted]


> if you prefer a world in which nobody is encouraged or rewarded to be
> creative then by all means argue against property rights.

I am making a point about a specific theory relating to content by arguing it should be treated analogously to property, and you're arguing the counter. Yet you believe that, as a result, you're in favour of property.  Ironic really.


[Apparently unrelated observation about excludability of property omitted]


> clearly you dont value *personal responsibility*.


[Gratuitous cheap shot, apparently unrelated to the foregoing discussion, included]


Just answer the plumber question.