I don't see myself any differently than any other laborer. I get paid for my labor. The actual skill is, for the sake of such discussions, nearly irrelevant. How is my position too cavalier about others? Does the guy working at Wal-Mart distribution have IP rights for innovations he creates on the job? Does the sous chef own any recipes she creates or do they belong to the restaurant and/or executive chef? Very few people get IP protection for their creative work. Either we all should or we all shouldn't. How is it cavalier towards others my not demanding rights in the workplace they don't have? I have to make a buck from my labor just like everyone else. The fact that I am an artist and perhaps not as easily replicated could be considered additional remuneration enough.
From my vantage point I have a job I love and that is a creative outlet. That puts me ahead of where I was before I began earning a living making art in my opinion. However I am also expected to support a scheme that gives me a perpetual income stream from my labors, as opposed to getting paid only for my direct labor like almost everyone else who don't have that same opportunity, otherwise I'm displaying a cavalier attitude about them? I don't get your thinking here. I value your opinion so I'm asking for clarification. I could be accused of refusing to stand in solidarity with other artists or workers who stand to benefit from enhanced IP regulations and remunerations. Is it that I'm supposed to jump at any opportunity to enhance my income even if it comes attached to the rather ugly concept of monopoly control on ideas? With the writers if they don't confiscate that income the corporation will get it so better the artist than the corp. but honestly better none of them get it in my opinion. Why enshrine ideas or creativity over actual labor? That is what IP is. The belief that ideas are more worthy than labor and so need monopoly protection.
John Thornton