Text 7688, 71 rader
Skriven 2005-03-22 00:07:06 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
   Kommentar till text 7652 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Intellectual Property
=============================
 -=> On 03-22-05  07:18,  David Drummond <=-
 -=> spoke to Raymond Yates about FidoNews 22:11 [01/06]: F <=-

 RY> The movie was produced at some expense to the Production Company.

 DD> But not the copy I have.
 
   Wrong -- if the production company had not created the movie, you
   would not have had a copy.

 RY> The Production Company expects to make a profit from the sale and
 RY> distribution of the movie, exceeding the producation 
 RY> costs (excepting Ishtar).

 DD> But if I wasn't going to pay to go and see the movie anyway, they were
 DD> not  going to maximise that profit from me.

  True -- but if you did not get an unauthorized copy to watch, you
  might well have gone to see it or paid to rent a copy.  The existence
  of unauthorized copies diminishes their revenue from their
  intellectual property.

 RY> Every Cloned copy of a movie is a copy that falls outside of the revenue
 RY> stream of the above system. In other words, the people that make the
 RY> film and> distribute it are not being paid for their efforts.

 DD> But they've place no effort in that particular copy.

  Their effort was in the original creation.  That creation was their
  intellectual property.  The fact that it was not bricks and mortar
  does not make it any less valuable, nor does it diminish their right
  to profit from its creation if they so choose.
 
 RY> Similar to you not being paid by your company for work you do, that's not
 RY> fair.

 DD> My work cannot be instantly duplicated at no cost to me.
 
   Depends on what you do.  For some of us, our work can be duplicated
   once it was created.  And without those same people, the creation
   would not have happened.
 
 DD> Of course not, it is such a subjective topic, the clone has 
 DD> been made without any loss to the original, it still exists 
 DD> in all of it's glory. The original owner has everything he 
 DD> started with.

  That is where you are wrong.  The original owner has lost the right to
  control or profit from his creation.
 
 DD> For a long time the Australian copyright law required  the
 DD> distribution for  (financial) return as the criteria for copyright 
 DD> infringement. Copying for personal use, and/or giving it 
 DD> away for free were perfectly acceptable.

  Given your apparent attitude towards intellectual property and if we
  are to believe your statements about the attitude of your adopted
  country, it is not too surprising that much of the talent in the
  entertainment industry there comes to America to ply their craft where
  they know that they *WILL* be compensated and not ripped off by
  unauthorized copies.

                        dale (at) min (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:31:33, 21 Mar 2004
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
 * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)