Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Logophile
All producers and marketers of copyrighted material?

I ask because I write books. My books are published under copyright.

I produce copyrighted material too, across a number of media channels, one of which is writing. I'd make a wager that you or someone in your family has seen (or possibly owns) some of my work. I'm of the opinion that one must publish or perish, to borrow a phrase.

Are you saying that I automatically deserve to fail because I do not give away my work free to anyone who wants it?

No, not automatically fail. Seemingly you are smart enough to be attuned to the market and willing to adjust your products to suit the market. But you seem to be under the impression that you have the same rights as the record companies, the mainstream news outlets or the film and video production companies in regard to copyright issues. I'd suggest you look up the DMCA, or the 'Sonny Bono Act' to see what a few well placed millions will buy these days.

I'd also suggest that you read Thomas Jeffersons thoughts on protecting intellectual property, and why he thought that it should be drastically limited.

For even more insight, I'd direct you to Tom Bethell's excellent book, "The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages".

Finally, I'd offer the observation (again) that the rise of Napster, file sharing, etc. is the unintended- and natural- consequence of a perversion of market efficiency by greedy producers of IP who are now enjoying their just desserts. And that that is undeniably a Good Thing.

40 posted on 12/23/2006 7:16:17 PM PST by IncPen (When Al Gore Finished the Internet, he invented Global Warming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: IncPen
No, not automatically fail. . . .

Well, I am glad you clarified that; however, even if that is not what you intend, the end result could very well be the same.

Seemingly you are smart enough to be attuned to the market and willing to adjust your products to suit the market.

What market? If my property rights are not protected—if someone can take my work and give it to others without compensating me for it—then there is no meaningful market to speak of. (market n: "a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale.")

But you seem to be under the impression that you have the same rights as the record companies, the mainstream news outlets or the film and video production companies in regard to copyright issues. I'd suggest you look up the DMCA, or the 'Sonny Bono Act' to see what a few well placed millions will buy these days.

You seem to be under the impression that I should dislike big, bad media corporations because they have managed to get laws passed to protect their rights. As it happens, my books are published by one of those corporations. If they lose, so do I.

Perhaps the companies have more rights under the law than I do. But tell me, what rights do I retain when the "file sharers" distribute my work without compensating me?

Finally, I'd offer the observation (again) that the rise of Napster, file sharing, etc. is the unintended- and natural- consequence of a perversion of market efficiency by greedy producers of IP who are now enjoying their just desserts. And that that is undeniably a Good Thing.

Undeniably a Good Thing? Thus far you have not given me any reason to think so.

Apparently you believe that the producers of IP are greedy and therefore merit some kind of comeuppance for their greed. But who really are the greedy parties here? It seems to me that no one is greedier than those who expect to enjoy the work of others without paying for it.

58 posted on 12/23/2006 8:22:14 PM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson