Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 12:59 pm

In article <WkPTe.13993$R5.992@news.indigo.ie>, 
david.golden@oceanfree.net says...

> > Why?  They bought something that you signed your name to. 
> 
> Bought?  I said "supplied".  No copyright, remember? People aren't
> going to pay much for copies. 

Contradicting your assertion that talented creators will make money.

> > If they wanted  something directly from Rowland, they would 
> > have asked. 
> 
> Yup... Only the thing they might want is not necessarily another copy of
> an existing disclosed information pattern they can get elsewhere, but
> the production and release of a novel information pattern, and R. is
> approached based on previous strength and for continuity.

So they have a choice between paying you a trivial sum for a copy of 
Rowland's latest, or whatever other stuff about boy wizards is floating 
around, or paying Rowland a large sum, enough to induce her to write 
some sequel sometime.  Which is going to be chosen by 99.999% of 
readers?

> If misled into believing the plagiarist rather than the true author
> authored the information, the consortium formed to organise payment
> would end up asking the wrong person for the service of production and
> release.
> 
> > And J.K.Rowling still has the $3 she got for the 
> > version you scanned
> 
> Why would she disclose to me for $3?

Because it's that or starve, probably, for a creator in your vicious 
new world.  Maybe she was holding out for $10000 but nobody would give 
it to her, knowing that as soon as somebody buys a copy, everyone can 
then get it more or less free.  Or maybe she serves fries to live but 
writes for free, even though the possibility of earning money from 
writing has been destroyed.  Probably there will be some people doing 
that, though they will mainly be the relatively talentless wannabees 
who currently write fan-wanks. 

> Of course, she would need build a rep for herself before commanding very
> high fees for the service of writing new books or disclosing new books,
> of course, so if it was her first book, perhaps she wouldn't get a huge
> amount for disclosure.

There's really little point in further debate with you - any reasonable 
person can see that your infantile communist arguments are based on 
half-baked ideology and moronic hand-waving about how creators might be 
compensated.  

A whore might earn a living in your world - it's obvious that a 
creative artist would have a good deal more dificulty.

- Gerry Quinn

.