From: sl6wv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: SCRIPT : NEW HOPE
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:30:03 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Jul15.214103.11648@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> In article <1992Jul15.121911.1@hamp.hampshire.edu> jlmiller@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>>I promised myself I wouldn't get involved again, I promised myself...but this
>>has torn it. Mr. Wagner, you obviously have never done anything creative or
>>meaningful in your life. If you had, then you'd know why the rights of things
>>must be protected. And believe me, they should be. When you spend often quite
>>literally _years_ on a project and then turn around and see someone ripping it
>>off, then tell me things shouldn't be protected. I refer you to J.R.R. Tolkein
>>and the problems he had with pirated Lord of the Rings. He worked on that book
>>for literally longer than I've been alive before it saw print, and someone else
>>attempted to reap the profits in an (often inaccurate) cheap paperback edition.
>>But basically we're dealing with principle here. Regardless of royalties,
>>whatever, by advocating the abandonment of protection, you are advocating
>>theft, quite simply. I am not exaggerating in the least--the theft of one's
>>work (or thought, for that matter) is even more heinous a crime than the theft
>>of , say, your tv. One is just an item you bought and can replace, the other is
>>the product of many hours of pain (and have no doubt, that is what both science
>>and writing are comprised of; hours of pain, moments of joy). And as for your
>>"they just got lucky" argument for scientific research, I can dispell it
>>simply--what is copyrighted in most cases is the article written on the
>>findings, not the findings themselves. For example, every time we mention DNA
>>as a double helix, we don't have to say, "As discovered by Watson and Crick."
>>But if we refer to the article or the book, we do. As for your "they got lucky"
>>argument, I think you should read Watson's book--it'll show you how real
>>scientific research work...and why it almost always takes more than luck.
>>As for your "cultural elite" jab, I'm sorry, but most writers are not PhD.s.
>>Does that disillusion you? Yes, I was offended, damn right I should have been,
>>especially since it always seems like those who complain about the cultural
>>elite always either seem to belong to it, or belong to another elite--the
>>monetary one. 
>>As a final note, yes, you did indeed say Jester _couldn't_ be prosecuted. It's
>>only when several people said he _could_ that you changed it to "wouldn't."
>>
>>Now let's talk about Star Wars, shall we, people?
>>
>>Jonathan L. Miller
>>Editor-In-Chief, 
>>UpComing, the magazine of speculative fiction.
>>Want more info on the mag? E-mail me at:
>>JLMILLER@HAMP.HAMPSHIRE.EDU
>>
> 
> Mr. Miller-
> 	How do you 'steal' one's ideas? With a long thin pair of tweezers?
> No! By claiming that the composition is the work of one who did not
> in fact compose the work!  A publisher of a work is not a thief.
> Did the first man who invented fire deserve a patent and government
> protection?  Was the man who copied him to survive a 'thief'?
> Hm?
> 	Perhaps Tolkien was a bit naive to assume a livelihood based upon
> his writing.  Can I assume a livelihood based upon my writing?
> Should everyone be given the governmental right to live on their
> compositions?
> 	You follow a common perception that governement, a body
> which creates and executes laws and policies, has the job of upholding
> the 'right' of people to do whatever they please and suffer no
> natural consequences.
> 	Then you made the mistake of bringing in common decency or morality.
> Mr. Miller, morality is a characteristic of individuals.  Perhaps
> it is immoral to duplicate a work without the authors consent;
> in that case, it is the prerogative of the -moral people- to avoid
> buying that work.  The government is not about morals.  Morals differ from
> person to person.  If the government established a single moral outlook,
> that would be equivalent to having a single dominant ruler of the
> country-something which we threw off with King George and our trans-fishpond
> cousins.
> 	Yes, the PEOPLE`s morals provide that bulwark of protection
> which the GOVERNMENT would not provide, and thus even black market
> supply would be curtailed.  By relying on government to fulfill
> morality, you take the occupation of morality from the people.
> You allow people to live immorally, following Rousseau's ideal
> of the savage.  If people have no morals of their own, you will
> see bootlegging, black market affairs flourish and then there will
> be no TRUE, INDIVIDUAL protection of intellectual property.
> 	Why is it that there are huge black markets in countries
> where goods are strictly controlled?  Why is it that there are no
> black markets where goods are freely traded, and yet there is no
> need, as there have been none, for these governmental laws?
> 
> 			Think hard, not fast.
> 			J. Wagner


	I think the one thing that gets lost here is that copyright laws are
just another way of defining property rights.  Consider how much money gets
spent on defining who owns just what acreage of land.  If I recall right, the
United States spent over two TRILLION dollars on this basic concept in just
the 1980s alone, and with this the military complex built from this
used some of the machines bought from this money to tell a certain Saddam
Hussein that his bully boys were on the wrong side of a line in the sand that
George Bush and a host of other people throughout the world said he shouldn't
cross.
	Copyrighted material admittedly is not quite so tangeable as real
estate, but the concept holds over that an idea needs to be protected and
property rights established.  And a comment was made that there are no original
ideas.  I might be able to say that certain synaptic impulses in my brain are
not original, but to say that I can't create a totally new idea that has never
appeared before humanity....that's bogus.  Where in ancient times (besides a
possible exception of Sodom & Gomorrah) were nuclear bombs used?  Show me the
ancient astronauts that were found on the moon?  Sure, the thumbnail ideas
might have been thought up a long time ago, by many differnt people, but it
takes a lot more to turn it out to a full project or product.  Many people have
neat stories, but how many of those turn out to be full fledged novels?  Wayne
& Garf can put together some trash for a public access channel on cable, but it
took a genius to put together a movie like Star Wars and organize all of the
pieces to make it work.  And it is these finished ideas that are protected (and
why I think Apple Computer is out to lunch to sue Microsoft.....but that is
another issue entirely.)
	A good friend of mine had a good philosophy regarding specifically
movies in general.  It was the idea that you spend the amount of money you
think it is worth.  If it was a piece of trash, then wait for it to come to
the buck theaters or even the video stores---perhaps when even a friend rents
it so you don't even have to pay for that.  On the other hand, show your
support for good movies by buying popcorn, pop, candy, ect. even at over
inflated prices.  Doing this give economic incentive for all involved to
continue to make more movies like the one you just saw so many more will be
made.  The same holds true for books, computer programs, music, ect.  If you
like it, vote with your pocket book.  And don't think that those putting the
stuff out don't notice.


			Rob "Woodchip" Horning