> Let's say that a writer takes ten years of full-time writing (and
> undertakings connected to this, like research) to write his new book.
In a world without copyright, that would be a pretty stupid thing to do, wouldn't it? Why is that fact necessarily a bad thing? Do we only want the kinds of books that are created in the dark over long periods by people with nothing else to do, or do we want books written by people who understand life because they have to actually have one while they are writing?
> >Is there something special
> >about creative work as opposed to physical or mental labor
> Yes. Any human being not physically or severely mentally handicapped
> can do physical labour. How many can write a book worth reading or an
> enjoyable symphony?
Here we simply disagree. There are fewer /good/ writers than there are /ordinary/ laborers, but fine craftsmen, master sportsmen, and similarly talented workers in other fields are just as rare and precious. And writers of crap as just as numerous as unskilled laborers.
> Are you an egalitarian? The term "Special treatment" seems to indicate
> the assumption that every other type of work is paid for in exactly the
> same way. This is not the case.
No, I am not. Value is created by demand, and people are paid based on how much their work is in demand. This in no way implies that some types of work deserve market protection while others do not.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC