<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>John's Blog - Latest Comments in strike</title><link>http://johnlillyblog.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:48:11 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: strike</title><link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2007/11/05/strike/#comment-1419072</link><description>yeah, i don't really know. i think that participation in upside is basically the important key. as i get older, i find myself siding more and more often with "labor" in arguments. in this particular case, as a pure consumer, i enjoy what the writers do more than any other actor in the value chain, so i'd like to see them compensated.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">John</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:48:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: strike</title><link>http://john.jubjubs.net/2007/11/05/strike/#comment-1419073</link><description>I'm curious about this quote in particular:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;"in other words, not letting them share fairly in the proceeds from the distribution of their work"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'm having a hard time rationalizing the difference in compensation for writers of media content and software engineers.  Do you think writers would be more fairly paid with salary &amp;amp; stock options, or do you think software engineers should be entitled to residuals on the ongoing sales/profits from the code they write?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Both are situations where creative experts create copyrighted material that is signed over to the corporation based on employment.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'm having trouble rationalizing the two of them.&lt;br&gt;Adam</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Adam Nash</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:29:56 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>