From: Lee Daniel Crocker
Sendt: 14. juli 2000 06:22
Emne: Re: SV: Makign money as a creative (was) Napster: thoughts and
>The music itself is a /pattern/, expressed in some medium, like
>a disk. It is the /design/ of the car, not the car. The disk is the
>car. I'm all for selling disks and cars. What copyright does is
>prevent me from selling a different disk or different car embodying
>the same patterns. I can't sell an identical replica of my Subaru
>or a re-recording of an album, even if I use my own materials and
>labor to build them.
Obviously you have no problem in physical property being owned. (as in the
right to limit others people acces/use of said items.) Anything
technological that we own like house, car, computer etc. Is the expression
of an idea. The point that it is expressed in some form of physical medium
does not change that.
If I get a good idea an express it in some kind of medium, and I am really
good at it. In fact the best. Like I make the best computers, the best car,
the best song etc. I kan sell this expression of my idea. Then I have an
incentive to spend my time to get better ideas. Just like the carrot in the
stick and carrot.
But if it was legal for everyboy to use my idea like they would see fit,
then some other guy would just copy the expression of my idea and make
identical copies. Cars like mine, songs like mine. Then I would only make
half as much money from my idea. Even at the same price. What if hundred
people copied it, a million?
The other guy who has made copies has had no R&D costs so he can sell it at
any price he wants, and still make a profit. If there is ten other guys
copying it there will shurely be a price that is so low that I would never
make my R&D costs back.
Then why on earth should I try to get new ideas, and express them in any
kind of medium?? The smart thing would be to wait until somebody else has
devolped it and then leech of of them.
The world has then lost the best ideamaker in this particular medium. And it
would happen again and again until it became the truth that you should not
develop new ideas.
>The naked, unsupported assertion that music sales will not support
>artists absent copyright won't become true no matter how many times
>you repeat it.
Well we have a system right now that works. Not perfect but it works. Your
claim is that another system will work better, so I guess that you got the
burden of evidence. I will look forward to see a record company that will
make it legal to copy their music and make a living of it. I mean it's not
like it cannot be done today. Why don't nobody do it then if it is a better
>I am a 100% free-market capitalist. I hold no higher moral value
>than earning profit in the free market.
Well there's two oposing ideas here:
Comunity owned (Socialism) ------ Individually owned (Libertarianism)
And I can easily see why both sides can sound good. Especially the free
market idea. But everywhere I look I see evidence that nothing is black and
white. Probably the most effective way to organise a society is somewhere in
between the two extremes. I don't see any reason that we cannot be
pragmatic. Whatever works the best is what we should use and then to heck
Society is like chemistry not like boolean algebra.
>Re-selling information works is neither force nor fraud;
>it is only "theft" because the law defines it as such, and it is
>that definition we are debating, so you can't make it a premise.
Yes. That is right. "We" decide ourself what theft is. An I believe that
re-selling the expression of my ideas should be considdered theft, no matter
>Freedom should be the default premise.
To some extent yes. Not totally. You want to make the world work after a few
simple rules to simlify everything, but that will never work. There will
allways be layers of complexities, or metalayers build on top of even a
simple society with simple rules.
I believe that fully libertarian societies would fail as misserably as
comunism has in practice.
Max M Rasmussen, Denmark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:35 MDT