On Tuesday 12 February 2013 11:05:15 James Harkins wrote: > On Feb 12, 2013 11:12 PM, "Louigi Verona" <louigi.verona@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hey James! > > > > Kinsella argues copyright from the point of view of non-aggression, i.e. > > property rights. > > Aggressive to whom? It doesn't answer the concern I raised. > > Suppose: I own a DVD burner and a stack of blank DVDs. Kinsella would say > that it's my right to do *anything I want* with these material goods. If I > want to increase the value of the blank DVDs by printing onto them content > created by someone else, that's *just fine* because I own the material > goods. If I then sell these newly-valuable DVDs for higher than the cost of > the blank ones, I am earning a profit. And you laboured to get them into the newly valuable state. Should you get paid for that labour or not. Why is the creator not doing that labour as well? Why can he not compete with you for the love of his fans? > The work that I did to earn that > profit is a tiny iota of the work that went into the content that I used, > but I am making money off of it and I am not paying the people who did the > hard work. And since there is no monopoly involved, how exactly can you earn a *lot* more than the next guy doing the same thing or than the original creator? > > I benefit, but I didn't pay (either by paying the author or by adding my > own work to make something new, as Fair Use or Creative Commons allow). > That's... theft. Please, it is not theft. It is currently a copyright violation. > And the author is justified in feeling violated. Why exactly? Do you really feel like your are stealing when you tell a joke that you did not make up yourself? Do you feel like you are stealing when you perform a work from more then a few hundred years ago? > If it is > an aggressive act to punish me for using MY dvd burner to make money from > someone else's work, why is it not an aggressive act to steal that work in > the first place? If you insist on using the word steal in this case, you are assuming your desired outcome in the question you ask. If you broke into the creators house and took his unpublished copy and duplicated that, perhaps in the process claiming that you wrote it as well, we will have a different discussion. > Kinsella has a simple answer: Possession is everything. > Creative labor counts for nothing. Like all simple answers to hard > problems, it's wrong. > > Ask a third grader if it's right for his desk mate to get a grade for work > that he didn't do. That will tell you what is fair by common sense. So, this is not //. He must not only copy, but lie as well to get that grade. Right? > > It's a necessary consequence of Kinsella's argument that some idiot with a > DVD burner can spend a few hours copying content he didn't create, and he > has exercised his inviolable property right while the people who made that > profit possible -- on the basis of years of training and practice -- are > screwed. Please explain why they are so *ignorant* as to not make those copies themselves and sell them? There is a world of material out there that it is legal to copy and sell. How many do it? Why don't you if it is so easy to make money that way? > They get nothing. If this is fair, then fairness has no meaning. > (I am ignoring your follow-up email for this reason. To respond to it would > not further the discussion.) One thing they can do is to not publish in the first place until they get something. Why in the world do you posit that they get nothing? > > (Note here, I'm beating Kinsella at his own game. His main stratagem is to > start with assertions that seem to be common sense, and lead them to a > surprising conclusion. I've done that to his premises, leading to the > conclusion that certain forms of theft deserve legal protection. Common > sense objects to the conclusion, making it highly likely that either the > premises or the reasoning, or both, are mistaken.) > > Copyright is not a good solution, and the media industry's abuse of > copyright is appalling. But the failure of copyright to solve the problem > does not mean that there is no problem. Well, we seem to have had a world without copyright for a long time and we seem to have had artistic creation in those times. > > > As pointed out on my site, producing IP is necessary. How will people get > > paid? Payment before publication is one thought. If you search around you will find others. > > > In various different ways. Just like they get paid now. In Russia > > copyright law is > > > not enforced that much, yet Russia has scientists, composers, actors and > > movie directors. > > > So they must be getting paid somehow. > > Like you, I don't know what is the solution. I simply object to Kinsella's > denial that creative labor is worth anything. > > hjh all thge best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
