XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Jim Gysin wrote:   
   > In this arrangement, everyone is *free* to make their own choices,   
   > whereas thuggery (judicial or otherwise) intended to take away his right   
   > to the fruits of his own creations is anything *but* free or noble.   
      
   The judicial thuggery here is copyright, not the absence of copyright.   
   Copyright is a government intervention into the marketplace forbidding   
   certain trades and actions, you'll recall.   
      
   > If their new works can't stand on their own and need to benefit from the   
   > work of others who preceded them, then they should pay for the right to   
   > the predecessor's work, as their own work is obviously not good enough.   
      
   This is unbelievably myopic.   
      
   Should we pay royalties per copy to the manufacturer of a pencil or a   
   paintbrush we used? Should we pay royalties to whoever invented the word   
   "the"? Where does it *stop*?   
      
   >> As for Disney's original assets the actual creators   
   >> are long since dead.   
   >   
   > In my view, the person who creates something new is the only one who   
   > should be deciding who should benefit from it after he's gone.   
      
   So if I buy an IKEA deckchair and assemble it, I should decide who can   
   benefit from the newly-created deckchair after I'm gone? I should be   
   able to control all downstream uses, rather than once I've sold it or   
   given it away (while alive, or in my will), whoever now has it can do   
   with it as they please?   
      
   Please justify.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)