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.
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.
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.
Cheers,
Alex.