XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Jim Gysin wrote:   
   > 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:   
   >>>> I don't get to sit on my fat ass and collect money off   
   >>>> works I created 40 years ago. 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.   
      
   Really? The last time I checked we didn't HAVE a free market in   
   intellectual works, because the government passed some legislation that   
   gives sellers all the bargaining power and outlaws competition in each   
   particular work.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   That's because you don't understand economics.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Copying something you wrote is entirely unlike breaking into your home.   
   You do realize that, right?   
      
   Your home is YOURS. Your ownership of it does not impair others' use of   
   THEIR things.   
      
   Your copyright, on the other hand, affects EVERYONE ELSE. It says there   
   are certain things THEY cannot write with THEIR OWN PEN AND PAPER or   
   whatever. It is not a property right of yours; it is a mercantile   
   privilege to restrain trade and other activities by other people. As   
   such it damned well BETTER expire at some point and in a country that   
   prides itself on having a "free market" it really oughtn't exist to   
   begin with.   
      
   > This, to me, is the fundamental flaw in the arguments that attempt to   
   > treat intellectual property differently than physical property.   
      
   See above as to why it is very different than physical property.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   We've already explained to you how it creates an environment that favors   
   large business enterprises over individuals and small businesses.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   I'm glad you're beginning to see reason. Copyrights (and patents) are of   
   course examples of the state interfering with a free market.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)