XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 11:12 AM:   
   > 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.   
      
   "Reasonable" as defined unilaterally by you.  Awfully convenient, that.   
      
   Me, I'm more inclined to think it "reasonable" to expect everyone to   
   respect the terms of the transactions that they freely engage in with   
   others.  My way is less convenient for parasites like yourself, but   
   there you have it.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   Because those are the terms.  If you don't accept them, you can walk   
   away.  But you don't have the right to agree to them and then turn   
   around and violate them.   
      
   Furthermore, once you get to high school age and take that econ course,   
   you'll come to realize that if the designer *can't* sell that design to   
   more than one client, then he or she will have to charge *much* more to   
   that first client in order to maintain the same level of income.  And   
   then, of course, the parasitic Seamuses of the world will sit back and   
   expect someone else to pay that higher price so that they can then leech   
   a free copy for themselves later on.   
      
   I would think that someone as fair-minded as yourself, who is so   
   interested in such noble things as the needs of society, would prefer a   
   system in which everyone pays a smaller price for something, rather than   
   one person taking it in the shorts.   
      
   > If someone hires me to assemble a widget for them, I did the work once   
   > and they pay me once.   
      
   Back to vocabulary class again.  See "assemble" versus "create."   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Similarly, a person who repairs my car gets paid for the repair work,   
   but doesn't get paid for creating the design work of the car.  Are you   
   starting to see how this works?   
      
   > Do one piece of work. Get paid once. Do two pieces of work. Get paid twice.   
      
   Good luck with that vocabulary class, Seamus!   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Yes, if that's what he wants.  People who don't agree are perfectly   
   welcome to forgo that architect's designs.  Isn't freedom wonderful?   
      
   > How unnatural.   
      
   What's unnatural is that you seem to prefer something other than market   
   freedom.  Maybe you'll also read about Karl Marx in high school, at   
   which point you'll begin to see the flaws in your approach.   
      
   >> 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?   
      
   Only if you want the designs, and only if those are the architect's terms.   
      
   > Why?   
      
   Because those are the terms.  You're always free to walk away.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Can you design a house yourself?  If not, you might want to stop being   
   such a cheap ass and start being willing to pay someone for the skills   
   that he has and you don't.   
      
   > It wouldn't put architects in the poorhouse to have to actually do   
   > additional marginal work to gain additional marginal pay, you know.   
      
   Irrelevant.  Whether the architect wants to strive for an extravagant or   
   an austere lifestyle is his decision to make, and only his.  And on that   
   basis, he offers terms (that are acceptable to him) for access to that   
   work.  At that point, you can agree to those terms, or walk away.  Can   
   you try to negotiate a mutually-agreeable lower price?  Sure.  Can you   
   obtain access to his design against his wishes?  Absolutely not, at   
   least not in any kind of morally acceptable sense.  But sure, you could   
   steal them.   
      
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)