Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I tend to agree. I suspect for some authors it's simply an emotional issue. They tend to think that it's their book and they should control all aspects of that book for eternity. It's their property. They forget that copyright is a privilege not a right. It's not actually property, the coined word intellectual property not withstanding. (coined by a lawyer who was trying to convince a jury that his client had something stolen when someone else used an idea that his client expressed). It's a bargain granted them by the government and like most bargains, there are two sides with each side having to give something.
|
Who says it is a privilege and not a right? My understanding is that it is a law that was passed and not a bargain that was made.
It can, of course be revoked and all rights lost, just as the right to own property can be revoked and has been in some countries time and again. Even in the USA if the government or someone with enough influence wants your land to build a road etc, it can be confiscated.
An author works to write a book, usually works harder to get it marketed, and deserves the right of ownership and income as much as someone standing behind a cash register or working as a CEO of a big company deserves the earnings from their labour. Most authors work for a pittance if anything at all and some people with a regular paycheck feel that they are not even entitled to the pittance.
Google should have the right to copy books, for archival purposes, that they acquire legally for the use of the company and any one person who is defined as part of the corporate entity or whatever Google legally is, should be able to read it, one at a time, but mass distribution or even peak inside the book without the copyright holders permission seems wrong to me. As does copying a borrowed book.
Helen