Mike Lorrey wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > We are not able today to make biological changes, but we can support
> > the existing mechanisms which allow for quasi- and virtual-persons to
> > exist under the law. Corporations, partnerships, marriages and other
> > groupings should be allowed to be treated as individuals when they choose,
> > to the maximum degree practical.
> In one word, NO. Corporations do not create anything through their own
> imagination. The individuals do so to greater and lesser degrees. The
> janitor doesn't create a building or machine design, doesn't design a
> logo or ad campaign. The secretary doesn't create a business plan or
> program an application. It is individual human beings who create.
> In a family, the preexisting children, the in-laws, etc do not
> contribute one whit to the actual creation of a baby. That is the job of
> the husband and wife. They are the ones who are the artists, the
> creators, and therefore they are the ones with the rights in respect to
> their creation.
> Any creation of art should be credited to those individuals who created
> it, in proportion to the degree of their original creative contribution
> to the final result, and any financial gain from the sale of said art
> should be in proportion to their respective degree of contribution.
Maybe so... but if you've ever been fortunate to work with a really good
creative team, the lines and proportions blur so much that accurate
attribution is impossible. This doesn't prevent distribution and shared
ownership though, just that some of that ownership is sold to outsiders
to raise the money to bring the concepts to fruition. Without the
corporation, the imaginations of its participants could not have been
put to use.
I don't have a problem with this...
-- Doug Jones, Rocket Engineer XCOR Aerospace
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT