John, > >> If I spend the next 6 months in my attic writing a sequel to > >> Atlas Shrugged, and the moment I begin to sell them someone posts > >> the entire thing to the internet and everyone downloads it for > >> free, where is the justice in that? > > > >Respectfully, I suggest that it is your responsibility to figure out > >a free-market way to do business which profits yourself. If you fail > >to solve you own marketing and distribution problems it is not other > >people who are at fault and are obligated to make up the deficiency. > > This is not a distribution problem. By that rationale, it is not the > criminal consumer who is at fault, but the producer who did not make > the theft hard enough.
It is a distribution and marketing problem and there is no theft. The case you postulated is one in which you VOLUNTARILY distributed your work to people with whom you did NOT have an agreement prohibiting them from "posting the entire thing on the internet". Then you complained when they did what they had no obligation not to do. [In case you did have such an agreement and they violated then your recourse is clear: whatever was specified in your agreement.] You, as the producer, have the inherent right to do whatever you want with your work. That includes giving it away. You do not have the right to complain, after the fact that you gave it away, that someone took it. > >No one is obligated to compensate you because you benefit them unless > >they have agreed to do so. That is what a free market is. Your > >problem is to figure out a way to distribute your work in such a way > >so as to secure such agreement. > > If they are benefited, they may not be obligated to compensate me. If > I provide a service to someone that they didn't want, they don't have > to pay even if they benefited. On the other hand, what if I didn't > agree to to provide the service. If the consumer isn't obligated to > compensate me unless they have agreed to do so, shouldn't they > likewise have my agreement to provide them with my product? Yes. But when you give your product to someone without any stipulations as to what they can do with it then you HAVE given your consent to them using it in anyway they care to. That is what giving means. How else could they have gotten your product? It they truely got your product without your "agree[ing] to provide it" (by subterfuge, stealth or force) then that IS theft. But that is not the situation you postulated. > As far as written agreements go, I believe there is already a > statement that copying is for your own personal use, may not be > duplicated for other reasons, etc. etc. on movies. These agreements > also exist on software. That is what I am advocating. However, I do object to these so-called "shrink wrap" agreements when they are revealed only after the purshase. There is also a certain impracticality about most of them when there is no effective means of enforcing them. > >Exactly right, again. However, many laws do not actually protect > >rights but violate them. Patent laws are a prime example of this. > > How do patent laws do that? I have explained this in detail several times on both this list and the e-gold list. If you wish you may be able to look up the long discussions that ensued in the archives. I don't think I want to go into it again and it would only irritate Turk! Best, Craig ------------------------------------------------------- - Virtual Phonecards - Instant Pin by Email - - Large Selection - Great Rates - - http://speedypin.com/phonecard/start.mhtml?af=743 - ------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************** * Craig Spencer * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *************************************************** --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
