From: sl6wv@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: SCRIPT : NEW HOPE
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:12:29 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Jul23.223415.13049@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.113330.21240@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> tlg4@po.CWRU.Edu (TJ Goldstein) writes:
>>
>>
>>I'm going to officially withdraw from this arguement.
	It's actually too bad, because you have some good arguments.  But I
will agree, this thread is getting a little bit too long.  What I con't believe
is that people have to be so completely contrary on something so basic.
                                                                       
>>
>>I would, however, like to make it perfectly clear that I am 
>>NOT pulling out because I have been out-argued -- I haven't --
>>but because Wagner's arguement has degenerated into gibberish,
>>and I have more valuable things to do with my time than point
>>it up to him.  My sledghammer arm is tired.
>>
>>But because I am not a vengeful person, I am going to hereby
>>post the hope that no-one he cares about ever dies because drug
>>companies didn't think they could recover their R&D costs due
>>to pharmaceutical piracy.  Happens all the time, I'm afraid.  People
>>like Wagner who think they're entitled to anything that falls in
>>their lap copy drugs on the market, drug companies can't recover
>>their R&D.  So the only drugs that get developed are the ones
>>with such a mass need they can't lose.
>>
>>So those with rare diseases suffer, die, and are buried.
>>
>>Congratulations, Mr. Wagner.  
>>
> 
> Thank You. Yes, you are right. I repent.
> Tomorrow I begin a crusade.
> I will ask everyone who has a problem what that problem is,
> and I will take every able-bodied, intelligent person in the
> work force and put 100% of our time and effort into solving those
> people's problems who have problems in as short a time as possible.
> And yes, I have complete faith that I will completely remove all
> human injustice, misery and death from the face of the planet through
> my unwavering actions.
> 	Through our hard work and investment in capital 43 people
> who die of a single rare disease will be saved.  But then, many
	Hey, if it was your own mother, I doubt you would be that cynicial.
> such diseases will be solved! Perhaps hundreds, even thousands will
> be able to live a few more years! And that, my friends, means everything
> to me.  Of course, those industries which do seem to rake in a profit
> without government support will not receive attention, and perhaps
	Who said anything about government support?
> those peole who eem to demand a good so much to actually pay real
> money for it will go without, but then, if they have so much money
> who cares, right? They can always find an alternative.
> 	It is, however, absolutely necessary that we divert as much
> of our finite resources as possible to attempting to save those
> poor, unfortunate souls threatened by disease or happenstance.  After all,
> if the government doesn't help them, who will? Nothing has been done to
> assist people in need without the governments help, right?  And if they
> do happen, they take too long, or wait for opportune discoveries, right?
> 	*Yah right*. Get real. If someone is dying they will happily
> fork over half their 'life savings' to live longer. If you think
> industry won't respond to that, you are mistaken.  Are Lamborghini's
> sales protected by the government?  Not ours.  But peole seem to want
	I'm sorry to break the news to you, but yes, Lamborghini sales are
protected.  If you built a car that looked like a Lamborghini and tried to sell
it as one, I'm certain you would face SEVERE legal problems.

> them and they pay for them. As a result, notwithstanding lack of protection,
> the Japanese came out with a whole slew of sportscar look-alikes,
> in respond to demand. Some may argue that in terms of price/performance,
> a Toyota MR-2 is better than a Lamborghini.  But Goldstein would have
> the Lamborghini protected, so it is only available to the rich, his
> uncle Joe with the Porsche and the royalty income.  Yes, Mr. Goldstein,
	Try reading the United States Consitituion sometime.  If is can be
proven that his idea of a sports car was an original idea (ie not in common
usage at the time) then yes, he certainly could patent the idea and get rich. 
Unfortunately for this example, the basic idea of a sportcar is too generic to
be used in this case.

> if protection is removed maybe the companies will not be *panting*
> to do research, but at least my family and those families who are
> poor can benefit from what does happen witjout going into severe debt.
> Again, you argue for a strict income class separated society, where
> the rich will get the expensive, government protected drugs and
> the poor will have to go into the debt of the rich, and thus the slavery.
> 
> 	No, Mr. Goldstein, I think my family will do much better and
> live much longer without any of your so called government help.
> 
> 			J. Wagner
> 
	I think the best argument I can bring up against all of the above is to
use what he kept arguing was actually happening: direct government support for
industries.  In the (now former) Soviet Union, it was ILLEGAL to copyright,
patent, or indeed to make any kind of a profit.  CAPITALISM was (pardon the
pun) a capital offense, and one of the problems facing Boris Yeltsin right now
is trying to decide what to so with all of the people still in gulags in
Siberia that were convicted of this most henious crime.  The result of that was
a major lack of creativity in their entire culture.  Most people wrote stories
and books either under a directive of some central planning committee or as a
rebellious tract to overthrow the government (which, of course, was illegal and
usually didn't get widespread distribution anyway.)  I don't know exactly how
much was done this way, but most of the technology that the Soviet Union had
was smuggled out of Western Europe and North America.  Sure, they had a few
good ideas and did develop some technologies much better than the W.G.O.P
(Western Governments and Other People, ie the stupid, backward, morrally
corrupt people that lived in industrially developed areas.)  One really good
example is their shock absorber technology, which they developed because they
didn't want to trust their cosmonauts in landing in international waters for
fear that they might just defect, so they landed the capsules on land instead.
	Getting more onto the subject that started this thread, the movie
industry.  There has been a long, hard struggle for protection of movie rights
internationally, and many countries still reject the concept and allow most
foreign films to be copied as much as the people there care to.  In the United
States, fortunately, the government was very strict from the very beginnings
with even D.W. Griffith or Porter, just to name a couple of early filmmakers. 
When Griffith made "Birth of a Nation", he ended up making (I'm not certain of
this figure, but I'm sure it's close by an order of magnitude at least) 18
Million Dollars.  And that was before World War I.  With just the domestic
American market it was shown that money could be made by such a project, and it
attracted over time the greatest theatrical performer and production teams, and
turned acting from a profession that even the best could barely eat to some of
the wealthiest people in the world.  Now in these other countries that didn't
have these kinds of protections, they either don't have a film industry of any
kind, or it is primarily government supported and run.  Keep in mind the Golden
Rule here: "He who has the gold makes the rules."  I'm basically trying to get
the idea forward that capitalism tends, as long as it's not abused, to make the
ability to express ideas of far more diversity.  This mainly because of the
freedom to make money.  (We are endowed by our creator...rights...the persuit
of happiness.)  
	Again, take a look at the Soviet film industry.  One interesting 
Soviet science fiction film called "Solaris" actually has hit American 
audiences, mainly in alternative cinema presentations.  An interesting
note about this film was during a showing of the film when the projectionist
fell asleep, and the film broke.  It was so slow moving that the audience
thought that the 20 minutes of white screen with no action was actually a part
of the movie, so they didn't even bother the projectionist.  This is considered
one of the better films produced by the Soviets.  Most of the time the awe from
the viewing of Soviet films is to see just what the censors actually let them
get away with.
	Other European countries have had to go to government funding of films,
although I will admit that language barriers also add some difficulty, not to
mention differences in culture that sometimes don't translate on the silver
screen.  Recent international agreements have done a lot to expand the idea of
intellectual property, and in those countries they tend to have a lot more
innovation that ends up spilling over to improve standards of living, feeding
the poor, and providing opportunities for all to make this world a much better
place.  If you don't believe this, at least take a look at the LiveAid concert. 
That wouldn't have happened at all unless those music performers were able to
protect not just their musical talents but also related areas (sheet music,
music videos, television rights, rebroadcast rights, ect.)  And I dare you to
say that those performers didn't do a lot of good with the money that they
raised.  Creativity is the key thing here.  And it all gets down to what the
argument was raised originally:  Is it illegal to post on a newsgroup the
complete script for a commercial movie?

	I think so.

			Rob "Woodchip" Horning
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars