7b3ee1b5   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   trag sent the following on 10/28/2009 12:26 PM:   
   > On Oct 27, 5:17 pm, Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   >> SFTVratings sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:11 PM:   
   >   
   >>> There should be a time limit.  The   
   >>> original 1790 act was for 14 years + possible renewal for another 14   
   >>> years.  That's MORE than enough time for a novelist to earn money off   
   >>> his creation.   
   >> So you would presume to tell a novelist how much money he should be   
   >> allowed to make off of his work?  Are you also a fan of planned   
   >> economies, when it comes right down to it?   
   >   
   > You are assuming there's some natural property right in intellectual   
   > works.   
      
   No, I'm not.  The "intellectual" in "intellectual property" is there for   
   a reason.  Rather, my assumption, if I'm making one, is that there's   
   some "natural right" (minus the "property" part) in intellectual works.   
      
   > There is not.  It's not something you can sit on and defend   
   > and say this is mine, as you can with a rock, unless you never show it   
   > to anyone else.  If you want to show it around and you want property   
   > rights, then you get what you're granted.   The *only* reason you have   
   > *any* rights in your shared ideas is because you happen to live in a   
   > somewhat enlightened society.   
      
   Similarly, the only reason I have any right to not be murdered or robbed   
   or blackmailed is because I live in a somewhat enlightened society.   
   Again, I don't deny this, but I don't see it advancing your argument in   
   any way, especially since I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't be so quit   
   to downplay or argue for the revocation of laws against murder, theft   
   and blackmail.   
      
   > But that's society's interest is in   
   > making you as productive of new ideas as possible--not making it   
   > possible for you to sit on your ass after one good idea.   
      
   "Society's interest" be damned.  Society has no claim on me in this   
   regard.  All that society should be allowed to do is to *freely choose*   
   whether or not to support my attempts to "sit on my ass after one good   
   idea."   
      
   >>> Twenty-eight years   
   >>> is long enough.   
   >> Why?  Because you say so?   
   >   
   > Because the "natural" alternative is zero, not forever.   You show   
   > something to someone else, they now have the ability to copy it.   The   
   > only reason they do not is because the rest of society saw some   
   > interest in *granting* you a monopoly for a limited period of time.   
   > Your property interest in an idea is not *yours* unless you choose to   
   > share it with no one.   You only get to treat it as a property   
   > interest because society has elected to help you do so for society's   
   > benefit.   
      
   I really love how the parasitic mindset here is working so hard to   
   justify thuggery and theft and the use of force, whereas I'm only   
   advocating a free market in which the buyer and seller are both free to   
   trade, or to not trade.   
      
   Again, "society's benefit" in this regard is nothing more than   
   collective parasitism wrapped up with a pretty bow.  Anyone is society   
   is free to benefit from an artist's work at any time *if* they accept a   
   set of mutually agreeable terms with the person who owns the rights to   
   the item that the buyer wants.  Otherwise, it's a society of leeches   
   trying to justify itself.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)