From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars
Subject: Re: SCRIPT : NEW HOPE
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:18:04 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Jul19.225253.20659@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> tlg4@po.CWRU.Edu (TJ Goldstein) writes:
>
>
>Normally, I go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid flaming anybody.  I'll even
>delete a flame if it appears in my sig.  But I have finally been
>pushed beyond my not inconsiderable breaking point.
>
>In a previous article, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) says:
>>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.
>
>No, he's not, because he PAID the author for the right to publish it.

So, if I steal someone's jewelry and leave $100.00 I am not stealing?

>
>>Did the first man who invented fire deserve a patent and government
>>protection?  Was the man who copied him to survive a 'thief'?
>
>No, because that was not the LAW then.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar
>with the concept.
According to you, then that SHOULD have been the law! You are only
sad that is twasn't your ancestor who patented it and made the money for
your family, right?(Sheesh) OF course it wasn't the law! The law is an
artificial structure in its democratic form, rather new to nature!
Yet you feel that there should be a law to keep everyone's ideas
and perceptions to themselves! You would have frozen mankind so Joe
Goldstein, Caveman Esq., could drive a Porsche!

>
>>	Perhaps Tolkien was a bit naive to assume a livelihood based upon
>>his writing.  Can I assume a livelihood based upon my writing?
>
>Probably not, since you do not seem to value your writing enough
>to put much into it.  As for Tolkien, I don't think he was the
>slightest bit naive.
That's great. You have an opinion. What are you saying regarding the issue?
>
>>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.
>
>You seem to be following a perception that government should uphold
>your right to do whatever YOU please without suffering any 
>consequences.  (IE, I can post whatever I want and you can't touch
>me.)
Your blindness amuses me.  I am not saying that government should do
ANYTHING, much less UPHOLD any of my actions, or even that it should
provide a MILITARISTIC support group for a monopoly on my publications.

And yes, I can post anything I want, and if you touch me I'll probably
touch you back.
>
>>	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
>
>Which is why is is up to MORAL people to tell others what has been
>duplicated ILLEGALLY.
You are contradicting yourself-If there is an established law, the illegally
acting person is probably aware of the law. Any MORAL being who is also
INTELLIGENT, or WISE probably realizes this. A person who merely reiterates
that which is obvious is not WISE, and thus probably has a questionable
morality.  The publisher of the script was well aware of the law, Goldstein.
>
>>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?
>
>That depends on your definition of "need."  In Japan, you can 
>duplicate American music and sell it without playing royalties.
>(At least, I believe so.  Whether or not this is true is immaterial
>to the arguement.)  Therefore, according to you, there should be
>no black market in, say, American music.  So if there's no black
>market, there is no need for copyright laws, right?  
Read one of the above paragraphs and you will see a definition of 'theft'
which generates necessity, or 'need.'  I do not know that many of
our laws are truly necessary-but they do do something. Life would go
on without them.
>
>That's fine, unless you happen to be one of the people being cheated
>out of money that is rightfully yours.
What makes money rightfully mine?  You claim that because you
were the FIRST to come up with an idea, it is yours. That is a complete
phallacy.  You have no ownership of any idea, and no, you have no right
to prevent anyone else from having that idea unless you give admission.
So what if you did the work, and invested your time?  If I invest all
my time in say, finding space aliens in cornfields, should I be
remunerated? You are saying that luck, a gift of God, what have you,
sets your time apart from the time of another.  You are saying that
your time which came up with an idea is inherently worth more.
Perhaps to you it is. And, when hunting martians, perhaps the martian hunter
would get emotional and bothered when someone wrote a piece questioning
the financing of his hard work.  For, without the government's thugs
and laws, your and his work would not pay off for you guys, eh?
>
>Let me say that I had initially said that, well, I suppose it's
>marginally illegal to post this script, but we're not hurting anyone.
>But congratulations, Mr. Wagner, your totally reprehensible diatribe
>has convinced me that intellectual property needs to be protected
>AT ALL COSTS from JERKS like you.  So I retract my earlier statements
>and say that I hope no-one else posts that script.
That is very good. I am glad that you feel that way and that is your right.
You will do what you will do, and it may be very good and it may be very bad.
It is for the reader to decide.  And if you want to protect your ideas
from me I advise you to sit in closed metal box and not leave, surrounded
by guards and anyone else you can persuade to help you. Because if I
genuinely have need for your idea, I will take it from you, and use it myself.
>
>I am a writer, Mr. Wagner.  I hope to make a living at it someday.
>I hope to be able to write full time, and do it well enough that
>people look forward to seeing my work.  If someone like you just 
>reproduces it without my getting the money I EARNED, I cannot afford
>to spend the time writing, and people will be cheated out of something
>they might have enjoyed reading.  
Yes, and a kidnapper earns his ransom and gets mad and kills his prisoner
if he is not mad.
You are right, there would be no kidnappers if ransoms were not paid.
>
>In short, if I wrote it, I have a RIGHT to charge people to read it.
>It's mine, and if you were to retype it and post it to the net, you
>would be commiting the same crime as if you had taken it from my
>basement and photocopied it.  
>
>It's called THEFT.
Well, I guess if through Democratic procedures you can get a couple
of guys with guns to say it is, I'll go along with it so long as
I'm not hurt.  Of course, deep down inside you must be quaking in your
boots with the knowledge that your profession is inherently not
a guaranteed meal-ticket and class apart.  By the way, to any who
may wonder, I have written software and minor compositions.  I sign a contract
for my software and am paid although I do not protect it through the
government.  Magazines send checks, although the work is not
'protected.'  If the magazine did not send the check, I do not think
writers would submit their works, or if they did, it would be knowing
that they would not receive payment and are interested in furthering
their status.  If contracts were not fulfilled the credit of contractors
would be in question and intelligent people would curtail their dealings with
the negligent contractor.  Do you know what a Credit Bureau is? It keeps
track of people's unpaid bills, lawsuits, etc.  It is not owned by the
government-although it is regulated-and it is a good way of keeping
the peace.  You prefer thugs to keep your peace.          

				I hope you don't do anything stupid,
				J. Wagner

>
>Get a clue.
>
>----  TJ
>
>(Note:  The above remarks are entirely mine, and do not refer to the
>sig for which I volunteer, Cleveland Free-Net, Case Western Reserve
>University, or anyone else for that matter.  Just me finally getting
>fed up with people not caring about the work other people do, but
>assuming that if it lands on the street it's finders keepers.)
>
>-- 
>             TJ Goldstein    tlg4@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>      Assistant Sysop, Science Fiction and Fantasy SIG  (GO SCIFI)
>--------------------   "Don't try to outweird me.   --------------------
> I get stranger things than you free in my breakfast cereal." -- Zaphod