|
One reason for taking: the owner is dead. I mean that in all seriousness. It does not matter how much we reward Arthur Clarke for his books, he will never, ever write another. No amount of money will change his mind. So, what possible justification is there in terms of "encouraging creative output"? Sure, there's the "my ideas are my property and I take them to my grave" response, but I don't think even the mammon-worshippers are demanding that extreme. Even in the USA, dead people cannot own property, so if you argue that copyright is property, why should it persist after death? No other ideas are given legal force after death...
Another reason: I have arguments that make sense to me for breaking whatever laws are involved. For example, I have no problem at all ignoring US copyright law. I have never been under its jurisdiction[1] and don't anticipate that changing.
Alternatively: I believe the laws are unjust, and am breaking them as an act of civil disobedience. I do not deny breaking them and would even accept Ghandi's approach if that eventuated.
[1] I realise that the USA regards its laws as universal and has repeatedly kidnapped foreign nationals and applied "USA justice" to them. I regard that as abhorrent.
|