Mason Mullins wrote:
> Yes, but an artist isn't "labor". The music they produce IS the "goods
> they sell" and as such they deserve to be paid for it just as much as
> anyone else who produces and sells a product. If you produced a product
> for sale and someone else copied that product and sold it or gave it
> away, effectively cutting your sales, I would imagine you'd be a tad
> upset about that. Same thing.
>
I believe Jonathon's point was that the artist should be paid for the
original production of the work. But not necessarily for all copies made
thereafter. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)
Of course, that's at variance with the basic model of both copyrights
and patents. I don't know if his way is better or worse. But it is
different from the current model, and contrary to several centuries'
worth of patent and copyright law.
Paul
-- Paul M. Foster ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:29:24 EDT