XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Jim Gysin wrote:   
   > Frank Frank sent the following on 10/28/2009 3:36 AM:   
   >> Anim8rFSK wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>>  Thanatos  wrote:   
   >>>> In article <4ae720d6$0$1636$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,   
   >>>>  Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>>>> Thanatos wrote:   
   >>>>>> And really, why should creative types have a fundamental right to   
   >>>>>> get paid over and over again for their work forever ad infinitum   
   >>>>>> while the rest of us only get paid for own work once? When a   
   >>>>>> carpenter builds a house, he gets paid for the work, then moves   
   >>>>>> on. He doesn't retain ownership interest in the house and get paid   
   >>>>>> every time someone looks at it, uses it, lives in it, or sells it.   
   >>>>> If he builds it on his own time, with materials he bought, on land   
   >>>>> he owns, then yes he does retain ownership until he sells it.   
   >>>> But he only gets to sell it once. He doesn't have the right to be   
   >>>> paid over and over and over again for it. He doesn't retain a   
   >>>> property right in the house that supersedes the rights of the people   
   >>>> to whom he sells it.   
   >>> He retains that right in the design.  Does your newspaper carry that   
   >>> feature where you can buy house plans?  You want to build a house   
   >>> from that plan, you pay a new fee.   
   >>   
   >> Which is just more greed and stupidity.   
   >   
   > But you wanting the plans for free is not greed.   
      
   Who said I wanted them for free? I just want a copy at their marginal   
   cost of reproduction, as is only reasonable.   
      
   >> You get hired to design a house for someone, you should get paid for   
   >> that work ONCE, by the hirer, and that's it.   
   >   
   > And that *is* it.  No one is suggesting that the person who bought your   
   > design work should have to pay for it more than once.  OTOH, if someone   
   > *else* wants that design work, then *that* person has to pay for it, too.   
      
   Why? The work was only done once. Why should it be paid for more than once?   
      
   If someone hires me to assemble a widget for them, I did the work once   
   and they pay me once. If they later sell that widget to someone else,   
   that someone else now benefits from its having been assembled, but I   
   don't get to charge that someone else with the bill for assembling it as   
   well; I already got paid for that.   
      
   Do one piece of work. Get paid once. Do two pieces of work. Get paid twice.   
      
   You think the architect for some reason is special and should be able to   
   do one piece of work but get paid for that same piece of work   
   repeatedly, without having to perform any additional labor.   
      
   How unnatural.   
      
   > See, here's the alternatives that such a system would lead us to. Option   
   > one: people quit designing new houses, as they can't make a living at it   
   > because of the freeloaders.   
      
   Really? If I wanted a house built with a novel design I'd hire an   
   architect and pay that architect. If I want a house built with a   
   pre-existing design, though, then I don't need the services of an   
   architect. Yet you think I should have to pay one anyway? Why? I don't   
   need an architect to do additional marginal work on my behalf, so I   
   don't see why I should need to pay an architect in this case.   
      
   It wouldn't put architects in the poorhouse to have to actually do   
   additional marginal work to gain additional marginal pay, you know.   
      
   > Option one: people quit writing new songs, as they can't make a living   
   > at it because of the freeloaders.   
      
   Musicians can make a living easily by touring and even by selling   
   recordings; despite the widespread availability of all music via   
   filesharing for the past decade or more, musicians continue to get by.   
      
   That fact seems to blow a massive hole in the chest of your pet theory here.   
      
   >> You hire someone to design a house for you, you should get THE HOUSE,   
   >> and that's it. In a truly free market, that WOULD be it.   
   >   
   > No   
      
   Yes.   
      
   > in a truly free market, the designer and the buyer get to work out   
   > whatever terms they want within the law   
      
   Yes, but in a truly free market, the designer and buyer do NOT get to   
   restrain other people from doing whatever the hell they please with   
   THEIR building materials and say "you can't put them together in this   
   one particular shape without paying us".   
      
   > and third parties like the Seamuses of the world don't get to   
   > presume to dictate those terms.   
      
   Who do you mean by "the Seamuses of the world"? I guess an architect   
   wielding a copyright, since that's who might restrain the designer and   
   buyer from designing and building however they damned well please.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)