XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Thanatos sent the following on 10/27/2009 5:48 PM:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   >   
   >> SFTVratings sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:11 PM:   
   >>> On Oct 26, 5:09 pm, Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   >   
   >>> I don't get to sit on my fat ass and collect money off   
   >>> works I created 40 years ago.   
   >> Sucks to not be creative, eh?   
   >>   
   >>> Neither should you.   
   >> Why not?   
   >   
   > The appropriately question is why you think you should. What makes your   
   > work any more special than anyone else's?   
      
   I don't presume any such thing.  I leave that up to the free market and   
   the potential buyer of my work to decide.  That's what a free market is   
   all about, as no one is forced to buy my 40-year-old material or   
   contribute to me "sit[ting] on my fat ass."   
      
   >> So you would presume to tell a novelist how much money he should be   
   >> allowed to make off of his work?   
   >   
   > No, we'd presume to tell a novelist that he only gets a state-granted   
   > monopoly on making money off his work for a limited period of time and   
   > after that he has to compete with everyone else. If he can still rake in   
   > the big bucks, that's wonderful. No one's gonna stop him.   
      
   Again, no one is advocating monopolizing writing or book publishing, so   
   I don't buy any "monopoly"-related arguments.  *Everyone* is free to   
   create *new* songs and movies and characters and works of art.  And   
   they're free to do it any time they want.   
      
   The whole "monopoly" argument to me makes no more sense here than it   
   would if someone were to suggest that, say, 20 years is long enough for   
   me to have a "monopoly" on my own home, after which time anyone who   
   wants to have a free place to live can break in and take over my den and   
   one of the upstairs bedrooms.   
      
   This, to me, is the fundamental flaw in the arguments that attempt to   
   treat intellectual property differently than physical property.   
      
   > But even so, most of us aren't even opposed to a life-of-the-author   
   > period of time, so what we're really doing is "presuming" to tell the   
   > novelist's kids that they're going to have write their own books if they   
   > want to a state-granted monopoly because they're not going to get a free   
   > ride off mommy and daddy's work. And we're "presuming" to tell   
   > corporations that they don't get to lock things up in perpetuity because   
   > they tend not to die off as readily as people do.   
   >   
   >> Are you also a fan of planned economies, when it comes   
   >> right down to it?   
   >   
   > Excuse me? Requiring people to compete on a level playing field   
      
   How does letting an author or composer retain the rights to his works   
   and the profits of those works create an unlevel playing field in any   
   way, shape or form?  There will *always* be room for the next great   
   novel, or the next Top Ten chart hit, or the next blockbuster movie.   
      
   > and not   
   > granting them a state-enforced monopoly is the antithesis of "planned   
   > economy".   
      
   How is interfering with a free market *not* a step on the road to a   
   planned economy?   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)