On Tuesday 12 February 2013 11:05:15 James Harkins wrote:
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
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?
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
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If you broke into the creators house and took his unpublished copy and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.
So, this is not //. He must not only copy, but lie as well to get that grade.
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.
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?
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.
Payment before publication is one thought. If you search around you will find
all thge best,
Linux-audio-user mailing list