> "That may be, but the effect of the NC clause is to make it impossible for
poor artists to make money from their derivatives of the covered work."
>
> No it doesn't. It means the poor artist has to find another artwork to make
derivatives of, one that is not covered by an NC license.
You just restated the exact same thing I said in a different way.
> the artist using the NC clause, who is probably also a poor artist
Why on Earth would you presume this? Poor artists don't make art and then put
non-commercial clauses on them. Licensing is a question that only
middle-class and well-off people have the luxury to consider. The poor artist
is too busy working actual jobs to go on a crusade against capitalism.
But all this stuff about poor artists is a side issue. I mentioned it in
passing. Even if poor artists can extort money from other poor artists by
using non-commercial licenses, it's still an unethical practice at the base
level.
> What we are talking about is not NC clauses on tables (or buckets), but NC
clauses on paintings of tables (or buckets).
You're splitting hairs here. Fine, then. I sell you a painting, and you are
never allowed to sell it to anyone else. Either you give it away, or you keep
it. I'm sorry, exactly what sort of good it is doesn't change the ethics of
ordering you not to do something with it.
If you feel that, yes, an artist should be able to order you to not resell a
(physical) painting they gave to you, then to be consistent, you must also
find it acceptable for the artist to order you not to hang the painting on a
wall, or for the artist to order you to never transport it to another state,
or for the artist to order you to never say anything about it. All of these
are unjust. If you have been sold anything, and it is yours, you deserve the
right to do anything you want with it. The same applies to digital copies of
works. If you are sent a copy, morally, you are the owner of that copy. It is
wrong to place conditions on it. The only exception I will grant is copyleft,
and that is not because copyleft is morally any different; rather, it's
because this is an imperfect world and we need to be pragmatic.
