comments interspersed
At Tuesday 3/2/99 15:39, Michelle Dick wrote:
>
>It's not an objection to profit or making money per se, it's an
>objection to someone else using something I own to make money.
That you own this something is not at question. The question really is, I
guess, if you can see no way to make money on it, and someone else does
(probably by adding some things of their own) what difference would it make
to you if they did make money on it? You are not diminished by their
actions unless perhaps an apparent association takes place between you and
something you wish not to be associated.
>Private property rights apply equally to for-profit and non-profit
>enterprises and exercising those rights (by legally restricting use of
>the private property) does not mean that the for-profit agency is
>showing animosity toward charity nor that the non-profit agency is
>showing animosity toward making money.
No question here; I believe in private property. I agree that you have the
"right" to decide, and I will even help you enforce that decision. It's
the reason for the decision which puzzles me.
>I bet if NBC asked PBS if they could use all their shows for free and
>broadcast them with interspersed commercials that PBS would say "no
>way". Is that "animosity towards the thought of anyone ELSE making
>money?"
In the case of PBS possibly :-) Seriously though, I don't think this is a
good example. PBS may not make a 'profit', but the "properties" they own
certainly DO have value to them. They "rent" them to the local stations
for the privilege of showing them.
>
>--
>Michelle Dick [EMAIL PROTECTED] East Palo Alto, CA
> Owner, FATFREE Vegetarian Mailing List
Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
