17 Feb
2013
17 Feb
'13
10:18 p.m.
On Wednesday 13 February 2013 11:29:16 Al Thompson wrote:
On 02/13/2013 01:49 AM, Louigi Verona wrote:
Where was this stated? Is it rather something you mistakenly asserted or
assumed?
Each hour is a limited resource. All hours of the day are not the same either.
When I was running my own business for years, I chared different rates
depending on the time of day and on the day of the week.
Did someone say they had a right to your labour? Or did they say they had a
natural right to make copies of what you published? If you publish something
without getting paid properly for the labour you put into it, why should that
be someone else's problem?
"In other words, he thinks it would be fine
for others to demand
that YOU do one hour of work for them a day for free, and that is
acceptable until more than 24 people have made that same demand."
Oh really? Can I have a quote?
You have stated that others have a RIGHT to the results of your labor,
which means that they have a right to your labor. You also have said that as long as there was no
scarcity of a thing,
then a thing can no have value because there is no contentiousness.
Personally, this may only be true if you are speaking for limited definitions
of value. (Such as monetary value, ie. something someone would be willing to
pay you for.) And even there, the convenience of having something plentiful
delivered to your liking may be worth paying for.
For example, if you are in a place like me, you will not get far trying to
sell "breathing" air to people you meet in your daily rounds. They just
breath what they want for free. (I think this may be what people refer to
when making such statement.) You will not get me to say that the air which I
breath for free has no value to me though, even though, like most people, I
will continues to breath it for free rather than start buying it from people
who want to sell it to me.
You
have said that people have equal claim to the product of your labor,
since you believe that they can do what they want with your creation
(copy your song and sell it, etc).
Again, was this said, or is this your conclusion?
If they have this equal right to
your song, it follows that they have equal say in what you do (change
the lyrics, use a different chord, add a solo here, etc). In a sense,
that makes them your boss.
Huh? How could they have a say in what you do? You are twisting things here.
They only have a say in what they do, perhaps starting with your published
stuff. If they want do do something different from you, your version will
still exist as you made it. Their version will also exist. It seems you want
to be their boss and tell them that they cannot do what they want with your
published work. Even after they may have legally purchased a copy from you.
Would you get a toilet installed from a plumber who told you you owed him a
dollar a flush and a dollar for everytime you sat on the seat, and an extra
dollar for every time you sat on the seat or flushed between the house of 6
am and 10 am?
You have 24 hours a day. By your thinking, it follows that as long as
you work less than 24 hours a day, people have a right to the results of
your labor because there is no contention over your time.
Sure there is contention over someone's time. If anything, they want to do
what they want to do with it. I know I want that with my time. If you want me
to do something that you want with my time, we have contention right there.
How do you miss this?
Once there is
more work than can be done by you in 24 hour days, then your work has
value, because there is a scarcity and contentiousness.
I prefer to go by a "property" standard, because it doesn't lead to such
dystopian outcomes. Nobody has a "right" to your person except you.
Therefore, nobody has a "right" to your labors except yourself. Thus
nobody has a "right" to the results of your labor except yourself.
So far, so good.
You
are free to sell it, donate it, give it away, or make whatever
conditions you want on a transfer, but that is YOUR decision, and nobody
else's.
Yes. Fine. (Perhaps there are some limits, we can discuss them if you like.)
Once you publish the result of your labour though, the situation changes. You
want the government to protect your right to control third party others even
after you make transfers.
all the best,
drew