This all sounds good, but it is very theoretical. Let’s look at the more practical effects. As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks. So what do we gain to potentially offset these drawbacks? Note that these gains would have to be things we would actually lose if creative output of individuals would cease to have property status. Finally, are these gains large enough to overcome the drawbacks?
Furthermore, there are many who argue that, should the creative output of individuals cease to have limits on their dissemination and use, society would gain more than enough to offset any potential drawback of this. It could also be argued that the cost would be entirely transitional, i.e. people would have to get used to new business models and move to different ways of doing business, and there would be otherwise no actual continuous loss by making the creative output of individuals non-owned.
This isn't meaningful - you have simply affirmed the consequent: "As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks."
I know this is your belief, but you haven't offered any argument to support it.
You also dismissed what I said out of hand, with the phrase 'This all sounds good but it's theoretical', which is also false on the face of it since it is the current state of affairs and has produced tangible results.
I know what you believe. I just don't think you have a coherent argument for it.
I would rather not argue specifics, but instead get you and people in general to understand what the argument is, and to get people to honestly investigate whether the cost is worth the drawbacks.
I called your reply “theoretical” because it talked about principles, not about what society would gain or lose with any available options, without which no cost-benefit analysis can be made. Are you wedded to the idea that the principle should outweigh all downsides in this case? How much would you be willing for this principle to cost society?
Have you not considered the possibility that many people here actually do already understand what the argument is, and have already investigated the costs and drawbacks for themselves?
If so, it seems as though you're simply hiding a position that you're not willing to defend.
I sincerely doubt they have done so with the same thoroughness as in the references I gave. Anyway, the original question (which started this thread) was by cscurmudgeon: “I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?” I was not, I think, disingenuous in laying out the argument for people who, similarly to cscurmudgeon, had not grasped the argument for the other side.
This all sounds good, but it is very theoretical. Let’s look at the more practical effects. As noted by many, the fact that the creative output of individuals can currently be owned has rather large drawbacks. So what do we gain to potentially offset these drawbacks? Note that these gains would have to be things we would actually lose if creative output of individuals would cease to have property status. Finally, are these gains large enough to overcome the drawbacks?
Furthermore, there are many who argue that, should the creative output of individuals cease to have limits on their dissemination and use, society would gain more than enough to offset any potential drawback of this. It could also be argued that the cost would be entirely transitional, i.e. people would have to get used to new business models and move to different ways of doing business, and there would be otherwise no actual continuous loss by making the creative output of individuals non-owned.