XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Thanatos wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Frank Frank  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Thanatos wrote:   
   >>> Frank Frank wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> aemeijers wrote:   
   >>>>>> Old rule of show biz- always leave them wanting more.   
   >>>>> But it's artificial scarcity. It's evil. If someone wants it now they   
   >>>>> should be able to have it now if they have the money to cover the costs   
   >>>>> (parts + labour) for providing one more marginal unit.   
   >>> Huh? If the owner of the property doesn't want to sell it, then that's   
   >>> his right. It's not evil.   
   >> The problem is that he gets to stop anyone else selling it too.   
   >   
   > Yeah, I get to not only refuse to sell my car, but I can keep you and   
   > everyone else from selling it out from under me also.   
      
   Oops, your analogy broke. Paramount isn't just stopping people selling   
   PARAMOUNT'S tapes and DVDs out from under them, but also THEIR OWN tapes   
   and DVDs manufactured to be a completely substitutable product. I.e.,   
   they have a monopoly, whereas you do not have a monopoly on cars, or on   
   a particular type of car (say, SUVs).   
      
   >>> If you want my car and I don't want to sell it, it's not evil of me to   
   >>> keep my own car just because you want to buy it from me. Doesn't matter   
   >>> how much money you offer.   
   >> But if I want a car I can get the same make and model from a dealership   
   >> or shop around for someone who is selling a used one.   
   >>   
   >> You don't get to make every (say) Dodge Ram on the planet magically   
   >> disappear.   
   >   
   > But I do get to control the sale of that which I *own*. This is no   
   > different.   
      
   It IS different. If I make a DVD using my own parts and labor that is MY   
   DVD. You are behaving as if, if I put a particular pattern of little   
   holes into a plastic disc I make, that disc magically belongs to   
   Paramount instead of to me. That simply cannot be rational.   
      
   >> a) if the copyright holder is not selling copies of or licensing   
   >> the rights to a work, then until they are doing so again it isn't   
   >> infringement for someone else to do so   
   >   
   > What if they've never published it? Stephen King has several novels   
   > locked away in his desk that he's never released. Do you get to force   
   > him to turn them over to you for publication just because you want them?   
      
   Obviously if something's never been published then that's another   
   matter. (And that suggests another alteration to copyright -- put it   
   back to requiring a registration, and the work is then lodged in the   
   Library of Congress when registered, like the old days. If the copyright   
   holder ever stops commercializing the copyright, after the timeout   
   period expires the Library of Congress can lead the charge in making the   
   material available for free or at cost from its own web site or on   
   suitable media (print-on-demand dead tree, plastic disc, whatever).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)