>>4893914>You're responding to two people as if they were the sameNo I'm not. The last quote was misplaced by accident, if that's what you're referring to.
> ""every living human is entitled to free access to any and all art" is unfeasibleHe did not make that argument. He made the appeal to emotion, and then asked questions. His point of view may have been implied through those questions, but the argument was not made.
>There are issues on how you define art, making this impossible to legislateThis isn't an issue any more than defining art is already an issue. It is irrelevant to the current conversation.
>It could lead to stifling creativityHow?
>as patents could be considered artHow would that be an issue?
>and thus be invalidThat doesn't follow at all.
>Artists would be less inclined with no financial incentive1. That's an assumption
2. Art is already not a financially viable career path
3. Art being available for free does not mean artists are not financially compensated in some other way
>There would be issues of ownershipHow?
>and responsibility over the creation of a piece of art"Responsibility"? As in someone needing to be held accountable for something they've done? What are you going for here?
>etcOh?
>An argument is posedAgain, no. Questions were asked, with an assumed indignant moral stance, but there was no argument. His whole post, and yours, assumes that others share his values, which is foolish.
>>4895559There is no information, and just because you are frustrated does not mean you are being trolled.
I did not ignore anything. I read your questions, and realized upon reading them that responding to them would be a waste of time. A better use of my time would be to simply point out that you did not make an argument.
