Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
If you're saying that current copyright laws need changing - I'm 100% behind you. I think they need a lot of changes.
However, the basic principle of copyright, that the creator of a work owns the rights to reproduce that work, is something that I feel needs to be maintained and defended. Even work-for-hire (and I've done work-for-hire) is based on that principle - because if I didn't have those initial rights I wouldn't have needed to sign them away in those cases. (And yes, I actually came out ahead on those deals.)
|
I don't have a clearly defined view wheter I'd prefer abolishing or changing Copyright.
What I really want is to get through peoples perception of what copyright is and make them realize that some of what they perceive as virtues are actually the opposite, and that clinging to Copyright the way the industry is doing right now, is actually blocking the progress of change that'll benefit us all. Right now I feel that the industry is going the opposite way, taking away the ownership of consumers to a specific product. You don't own an e-book, you rent the right to read it, and you can't lend it to your friend. Those are the parts of ownership consumers have that are being taken away, and thats just for consumers.
If Copyright was changed enough to benefit both authors and consumers, and supported those values I feel are important in creating content (which I've listed, such as innovation, accessibility, adding value rather than decreasing it etc.). I'd probably be happy enough.
If Copyright was abolished, I'd fight for those value aswell, as replacing them with a vacuum would diminish that. If you make something, you own it. However someone lending it or making a copy doesn't nescessarily take away from your ownership. It all depends on the context. I believe than an artist should be able to protect the artistic integrity of his work, and that writers deserves an incentment to create good works, all those would be gone.
I personally believe that the best future actually exists in derivatives. Just as it did in Germany in those old days. Competing with copies by making a more attractive product, or an ecosystem that increases derivative income, actually promoting profiliation of the work. Instead of selling 100 books, and earning 1 dollars each. You give away 1000 books, and your fans pay you 200 dollars for fine leatherbound editions they want in their library, or 100 on an author tour. (These arent nescessarily the best examples, I am just trying to illustrate a principle). It's already happening in other industries.
Quote:
|
Why is this? Is ownership some natural property of human thought? Where did the idea of ownership come from and why do we continue to believe that one thing can hold dominion over another?
|
We tend to discuss Copyright mostly in terms of price and ownership. But one other thing I think is important is artistic integrity. The right for you to have your work represented in the way you originally envisioned it. While others can copy it, try to improve it. Use your formula to create an even better vaccine. And for the good of all of us, that really should be possible.
Having your work represented as someone elses is, or your work modified and represented as yours. Goes against my ethics.