Justin writes:
> But there are a bunch of problems. He's not doing
it alone.
Well, I haven't seen anyone else in our apartment typing with him. LOL.
> How much is his contribution and to what and how much
does that (morally) entitle him?
I do not know. That is why I was asking.
> Suppose writing the play is a breeze for him. Has he contributed
less than if it were an agony?
No. Why should that matter?
> Does it matter how much time he takes writing it?\\
No. A work of art takes the time it takes.
> Also, even if he has a right to the product of "his" labors,
it doesn't follow that he has a right to the fruit of that product,
e.g., the profit, if any, from selling it in the market.
Why? Isn't part of the struggle getting workers the right to the fruit of their labors?
> Plagiarism is conscious copying.
Okay. Got it.
> Btw, I don't think there are a finite # of ways to look at
Hitchcock or any great artist.
I think we are finite creatures in a finite universe. I do not believe that the finite can give rise to the infinite. I think the bigger problem is that capitalist culture puts apremium on originality instead of usefulness. I think it is much healthier to be pragmatic (didn't James say pragmatism was just a new name for old ways of thinking?) than original. An emphasis on usefulness also cuts down on the cult of self.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister