Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

simo simo.sorce at
Mon Feb 11 14:58:04 UTC 2008

On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 09:38 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 20:18 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > I don't see how an author has any right to control their labour that
> > extends beyond *where they put* their labour.
> > 
> > Once they've given their labour in exchange for some mutual
> > consideration, they have no "right" to control what the other party
> > does with it; just as a person whistling a tune has no "right" to
> > control what I do with that tune once it's in my head.
> Sure, but "mutual consideration" doesn't mean "this is what your labour
> is worth". A consideration can be much less than the actual value of
> something.

Then maybe the value was not so high? I can do very costly junk, that
doesn't entitle me to force people to buy it.

> For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going
> to cost ~$100k. Nobody is going to buy a copy of that film at that
> price. They probably would spend $10 on a copy, but that's not the true
> value of the film and therefore someone spending $10 on a copy of the
> film shouldn't expect to have the right to do what they wanted with that
> film as if it were theirs.

This is simple, you make a contract, before the film is ready to be
shipped, with the major theaters, so that you are sure you will get
enough money to cover the costs. Once that is done you have your money
back (and probably something more) anything else that comes is just a
plus and should not be enforced.

Also consider donations or funding from rich people that likes your
work. They work too in many (and I'd say more important some times)
fields, like *science* or less popular art forms.

Please make a better example, and make it clear if you refer to survival
or to the right to become rich.

> I'm not saying that anyone has a right to be able to do this kind of
> thing profitably, but there is a balance here: if it's not possible to
> do something viably for a living, then few people if any will do it. 

Then probably that's how it should work. Be sure that if something is
needed people will give money, if not, they won't. This is how it works
for everything. Or should we force people to buy the FooBarBaz Machine
just because other wise the FooBarBaz manufacturer will not get money ?

The current situation is clearly unbalanced, but your arguments are not
really convincing.


More information about the Discussion mailing list