[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
What rubs me wrong about his post is that he's basically arguing against IP protection because someone else is still willing to pay for it, and people are still relatively well-off from it. Well, what if they weren't? Would it still be ok? What if artists couldn't make a living, despite being immensely popular? What if there was no funding for innovative new drugs, because there was no money in it? Would patent infringement still be ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Results-oriented much? This argument is bogus because it presumes that the current outcome (looking only at one narrow group of people) is the desirable one, and judges alternatives by how they stack up to it. It ignores any discussion of legitimate actions.

Eliminate unjust, illegitimate actions, and let the chips fall where they may. Trying to micromanage your way to particular outcomes is a poor strategy.