On 29/03/2011 09:00, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 28/03/2011 08:52, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by...
John Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!


And another thing - there's no way the estate should benefit from his
work, surely?! Proceeds should go to the state, such as it is.

What if the *people* who are legally his "estate" worked to help bring the
work to publication?


This becomes circular again - how can ascribing money value to
contributions of this kind ever be fair? To answer your question
directly, they should sort all that out at the time of 'creation'. If
they don't, it all goes to the state. I have a series of lectures on
this very thing - I rarely come out unscathed :-)

As before, the general question is why *you* should assume you can take
without payment what others have offered only on the basis that you should
pay them the price (and conditions) they specify? Why should your wishs
overrule theirs? You have a free choice to buy or not. So far what you
claim as your "moral" position simply seems to be "I'll do what I like
regardless of the stated wishes of others I then affect." Can't say that
seems very "moral" to me.


I've tried to explain that. I could quite happily sleep, having made a
considered decision on the basis of information I have to hand. I think
you underestimate. Anyways, you clearly know something I don't to have
reached such a conclusion.

I'd agree that I don't know fully how it all works. A student once
showed me a cheque for 40p (I think, a very small amount) as payment for
work she did in the 1970s on 'I Claudius'. People who 'rip off' pirate
DVDs would doubtless affect her royalty cheque. Now, if I was to obtain
a pirate copy of that, I'd guess I'm affecting her cheque. And if you
multiply that out, I'd guess it runs to maybe 2, perhaps 3p, not sure.

But I wasn't talking about that type of thing in any case. I was
thinking of generating money for charity, and spitefully adding to land
fill. You've cut out that potential act very conveniently so it fits
your view of 'complete' morality. I doubt you remember the original
context in any case - I can happily restate.

Perhaps if people like you who have this rounded view could spell out
how much hurt is done and to who your position might make more sense.

Rob