--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com
, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@> wrote:
> > > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:
> > > > > If I write a book and it sells well for
> > > > > 5 years, where am I being paid many times?
> > > >
> > > > You are being paid each time someone buys one.
> > > > Surely this is obvious.
> > >
> > > I am not. Over 5 years if the book
> > > makes say £100,000 and then publication halts,
> > > then I have been paid once for that book run.
> > No. If you had been paid a flat fee,
> > that would be one payment.
> Roy, so what!
So you are in fact being paid multiple times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> If I get paid one fee at the end of a book run or drip fed each time a book is sold, it doesn't matter. One thing that is clear, it is MY book and MY work.
No, it is being produced by a publisher and sold by booksellers. For whose work YOU are being paid multiple times.
> The most recorded song in history, by countless artists, is "Yesterday" written by Paul McCartney. He gets a royalty for each record sold, or played on air, by those who copy.
Getting paid millions of times for the same work, just as Shaw said.
> Those who copy still make money as well.
Some do, some don't. How would that be relevant?
> I see nothing wrong with that. Paul McCartney has never stopped any of them recording his song.
Then why would they pay him for doing nothing?
> All the proceeds of his original go to him and rightly so..
No, it is not just "his original," but all the other arrangements and versions as well.
> > > He took someone else's effort.
> > What do you mean, "took"? He made his
> > OWN effort, creating a new product which
> > others did not create.
> He did not.
He indisputably did.
> He took the efforts of other authors R&D and rolled it into one book.
No, he did his own R&D, making one better book using ideas from worse books.
> I have always thought of doing the same myself. Within a few weeks a "new" book can be knocked up by using other people's efforts. I am sure it happens all the time.
And there is nothing wrong with it.
> > > > > What about the case of a large company
> > > > > making millions using your work and you get nothing?
> > > >
> > > > Good for them: it means they are more productive
> > > > and efficient than their competitors, who have
> > > > access to the same knowledge and ideas. If you
> > > > want to get paid for your work, make an arrangement
> > > > to get paid before it enters the public domain.
> > >
> > > That is pure naivety.
> > It is fact.
> Many Socialists claim all the free market does is allow most money to gather with a few percent of the population.
Because they refuse to know the facts about how land titles and other privileges, which are no part of a free market, steal from the productive and give to the privileged.
> They claim a free for all does this so control, or state ownership is needed. We see it now with powerful corporations.
I see powerful corporations enriching themselves through privilege, not the free market.
> The right never thought through their ideal - the repercussions of when the free-market is rigged or monopolized.
The right thinks freedom consists in the privileged being free to remove others' freedom with government's help.
> Roy, you have this ideal of a free for all re: patents and copyright. I agree with it in principle. But when thought through it falls apart.
No, it does not.
> The money will rise to the top.
<sigh> How much money do Paul McCartney, DisneyCorp, etc. have under the CURRENT system, John?
> I know it is not right. I do not know the solution to the problem - because I have never thought it through.
That's OK. I have.
-- Roy Langston