XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 10:14 AM:   
   > 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.   
      
   You're confused again.  The "free" in "free market" isn't free as in "no   
   cost."  It's free as in "you can do business on mutually agreeable   
   terms, or you are free to walk away."   
      
   >>>> 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.   
      
   Now that's funny.  So you *do* have a sense of humor, after all.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   Gaining illegal access to something that's not yours to access is   
   gaining illegal access to something that's not yours to access.  It   
   doesn't matter if it's a work of art or a work of architecture.   
      
   > Your home is YOURS. Your ownership of it does not impair others' use of   
   > THEIR things.   
      
   Let me make it simple for you.  The person who has the legal right to   
   something determines how and if others will be granted access to it,   
   whether the "it" is a song or a house.  If you don't agree to the terms   
   of access, then you can walk away.  But you can't force yourself into   
   the house against the owner's will, and you can't obtain an unauthorized   
   copy of the song against the composer's will, as both are theft in every   
   moral sense of the word.   
      
   Any attempts at justifying a course that would deny this simple reality   
   is just dressing up parasitism with a pretty bow.   
      
   And with that, I'll cut back on replying to your various attempts to tie   
   pretty bows.  To anyone else who hasn't already killed this thread on   
   their own end, I promise to hereby cut way back on my replies to cheap   
   asses like Seamus.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)