REH wrote:
> Private property causes all kinds of problems that communal property
> doesn't as well but we are all capitalists here.
^^^^^^^^^^
Are we? Please only speak for yourself, Ray.
> The issue is whether your mind and ideas are private property or not and
> whether you can license their products AND whether those licenses have a
> basis in law. We voice teachers here in the United States cannot sell
> and license our product because of what they call the "Gift of God" clause
> in the law which states that voice is not taught but is a gift of God and
> therefore contracts cannot be entered into between a teacher and student
> for a part of future proceedings from the student's career. What that
> did was stop private scholarships to students for future gains, cut back
> on teacher's investments in their students, increase "scale" group
> education and basically kill all serious vocal art composition in
> America since the students rarely had a teacher willing to invest the
> time, resources and connections that had fed the growth in new
> compositions prior to that court's rulings. In short, you
> don't know of what you speak.
Absurd -- the issue was patents on software (i.e. algorithms) and you jump
on a whole different topic and then accuse me of not knowing of what I speak.
As usual, Ray, please do your homework before throwing mud at me.
If anyone here is a "materialist fundamentalist", it is you who wants
to commodify (i.e. "materialize") even immaterial things like voices
and software.
Selling one's future career's proceedings to a teacher??
Gosh, I thought the era of slavery was supposed to be over...
(Where is this gonna lead to? Highschool teachers getting
a share in the career's proceedings of all their pupils?)
Please, if a teacher isn't "willing to invest [sic!] the time"
to teach, then perhaps he chose the wrong profession.
Chris
