Re: The good fight

From: Dan Bernitt <dlb[_at_]psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 08:32:34 -0400

At 09:24 AM 9/11/2002 Wednesday, you wrote:

>While I am estatic that the entire very elite intellectual property
>community will provide support, the point in the ditch digger example, is
>that if it takes 3 man months to create one ditch and it takes 3 man
>months to create one book, the effort of the ditch digger is the same as
>the effort of the book writer and therefore each should be paid but one
>time from one buyer for the effort. The very idea that the 1 man 1
>effort gets paid a million or more times via the vehicle of a monopoly is
>patently wrong.

..
..
..

>On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
> >
>
> > You know, on further thought, I've been persuaded that you're absolutely
> > right. A digger's ditch is every bit as creative, and deserving of suitable
> > compensation--and protection--as my book, poem, or article. Royalties
> > should be paid, and unauthorized copying prohibited. Any attempt by some
> > wannabe digger to pass off an imitative ditch as an original earthwork
> > should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, with the support of the
> > entire intellectual property community.
> >
> > --Dodi Schultz
> >

I'd like to see this aspect taken a bit more seriously. The ditch digger analogy is poor and serves neither side. How about considering something like a bridge? What's the comparison between an author and the designer/builder of a bridge? Should that builder be paid one time for the work or should he collect a royalty each time someone crosses? This is a terribly insufficient analogy but perhaps can lead to better if the topic is worth discussion at all? Received on Thu Sep 12 2002 - 12:37:47 GMT