Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker
@riemann42: Authors don't deserve to get paid when I read their work any more than woodworkers deserve to get paid when I sit at their tables, or sewing machine operators deserve to get paid when I wear their clothes.
|
Fascinating rant, all the way through. It got a little weird when you starting rating about the lack of good modern literature, but I will refer to Elfwreck's response to that
So I offered two base ethical arguments concerning copyright that, while not mutually exclusive, at least came from different perspectives.
1) A system of ethics which assumes it is immoral to violate a contract entered into in good faith. Therefore, violating copyright in any way is immoral. The problem with this argument is that it comes down to a legalistic argument fairly quickly, and enters into complicated territory which varies from country to country, etc.
and
2) A system of ethics that argues that an author deserves to get paid when I read his book. While I think your woodworking example is ridiculous in the extreme, the sentiment is understood. This position is very difficult to apply, and as I have mentioned before, has some bizarre implications. Do I deserve to get paid for this post? I think not!
So
is there any basis for an ethical argument one way or the other on the issue raised by the article???
EDIT: I will answer my own question. Yes, the 1st case I made above. In the end when it comes to copyright, the ethics are, in general, in line with the law, as copyright is a legal construction. Any attempt to remove it from this context and move to some sort of larger ethical issue about compensation causes long rants by Worldwalker.