Quote:
Originally Posted by spellbanisher
The problem with copyright is it tries to create artificial scarcity. That worked with paper books, (I know that copyright covers more than books) but with digital books its almost impossible and usually impractical. With some mediums, like music, television, and movies, creators can still create scarcities. Musicians can make money from live performance and merchandise. The primary profits for movies comes from theaters, where moviegoers pay for the experience more so than for the movie. And of course television makes its money from advertising.
|
There's an asterisk there being that copyright doesn't create artificial scarcity, it creates the means within the law for an author to make his creation scarce
if he so desires.
With physical property scarcity is natural. The paper book isn't scarce because it's copyrighted. It's scarce because printing a book is fairly impractical for most people. The copyright covers the remainder of the people for whom it is practical. It permits the author to seek compensation through the law.
The point there being that If I choose to labor, I have a right to the fruits of my labor. If it's in a field it might be the literal fruit of a tree, or money the owner of the field agreed to pay me. If my labor is writing a book, I am entitled to the fruit of that book so far as I can make it and the value of copyright is that another can't lawfully take that work and claim it as his own (whether he claims authorship or ownership). So I can write my book, and choose what to do with it. I can do the same with the fruit I pick off the tree (tree ownership, field, etc. notwithstanding), it's my labor and my choice what to do with the result.
If no one is willing to exchange for my work, than a copyright is valueless anyway. On the other hand, there are many who will abuse copyright law for outside of it's intentions.
(Also, I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of the argument here...)