More on manuals plus rescue
scaron at umich.edu
Thu Aug 20 09:44:11 CDT 2015
OK, interesting defense of private property and while I'm a socialistic
kind of guy I'm not going to argue with you the fundamental right to
private property but my consideration is, while some vendor may own one
particular "dead trees" incarnation of a manual, they don't own the IP
rights to the actual content ... they are taking advantage of the gray area
there as much as any preservationist ... only for their own profit, and not
just public enlightenment.
If I happen to have another copy of a manual and I scan it and someone
elects to use that incarnation instead of paying $50 for someone's dead
trees, I haven't stolen anyone's manual; they still have it ...
It's just not worth what he thinks it's worth.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Sean Caron <scaron at umich.edu> wrote:
> > At what point should historic preservationists be concerned with
> > someone else's obsolescent business model? Selling Xerox copies and
> > CDs ... and that's hard cash out of the pocket of every hobbyist that
> > undoubtedly be better spent say, preserving actual equipment, than
> paying a
> > "vig" on documentation. I know it's hard to make a living in the USA
> > days but I feel the suggestion is only going to hurt consumers and delay
> > the inevitable anyway.
> If you want to have a defensible claim that your personal property is your
> own, you have to likewise respect the claims of others to theirs.
> If someone sells property he owns, you have a choice: you can spend your
> money to buy it, or you can elect not to spend your money and not buy it.
> But you cannot argue that the seller's business is "obsolescent" and this
> is a reason to justify stealing his property. Nor can you argue, in a free
> market, that the selling price is a "vig" -- if you don't like the price,
> offer less, find another seller, or get in the business yourself.
More information about the cctech