What are you implying here? That humans do things without economic incentive, thus everything can be done with economic incentive? That's a ridiculous extrapolation.

I'm pretty conflicted about copyright myself, but in principle it seems very valid. The issues are in the nuances and details, just like drivers' licenses make sense in principle but one can argue on the details (driving age, driving lessons, license costs etc). Contrary to existing copyright law, as a creator I wouldn't mind if a movie or song I made today became public domain in 2040 for example, and I think most people can agree to this. So obviously some of the current details of copyright law are ridiculous but that's different from implying that copyright law shouldn't exist at all.

  > What are you implying here? That humans do things without economic
  > incentive, thus everything can be done with economic incentive?
  > That's a ridiculous extrapolation.

I entirely agree that's a ridiculous extrapolation from my question. (Though I suspect you mean 'without' rather than 'with'.)

You then proceed to bring yourself along to the point I was making -- it's a matter of degree, and self-valuation (as the parent alludes to later) is the primary factor in determining what can and can't be done, or over what time frame, with someone's output.

Not that self-valuation isn't important - but it probably shouldn't be entirely self, or entirely others', role to determine the value of someone's output / contribution to society.

From reading his post, I get the impression that his/her incentive was to uphold copyright.

Exactly right. I don't support copyright exactly as it is, but I'm very much against abandoning the concept.

I do comment frequently on HN just to be social or pass the time. But I don't attach much economic value to those comments, except in the most general sense of maybe winning friends and influencing people.