Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
You said that creators deserved compensation when their works were experienced. Now it's, "they deserve compensation for every several people who experience it."
How many people can share a work before there's a moral obligation to re-compensate the original creator? How many people at a doctor's office can read a magazine before it's wrong to keep sharing it?
Government-funded libraries pay special rates; private libraries don't. I have several friends with lending libraries.
I agree; I just don't think we'll find that ground by insisting that the author "deserves" to be compensated per reader, or per n readers. I also don't accept "it's too easy to copy, so we must prevent legitimate, non-infringing users from full use of their purchases." That argument didn't fly with music and it's not going to work for books.
|
Agreed, sort of.
The REASON we have copyright protection was to promote the progress of science and the arts for the good of everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I hate to sound like Giggleton, but we don't have it so that an author gets paid every time someone lays eyes on his product, but for the good of the people as a whole.
We DO need to make sure that copyright stays as an incentive to create works...so there are problems in the digital era. But assuming the customer is a criminal and thus locking down products with DRM isn't right either.