Well stopping a book from being available to some and only making it available to others is morally wrong and has no valid bases. It's discriminating to tell a person you cannot read this because you live in a certain area.
If you want your work to be in a specific type of paper and in a specific type of book for artistic reasons, that's all your right and it's probably a good thing to put some artistic value to the media but in today's global economy if you can get such a book somewhere, you can get it somewhere else too and wishing to limit the availability of such work to some people only is morally wrong, discriminating and in some cases elitist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
Never said control of physical dissemination... lending, reselling or giving away doesn't change the physical production of a physical object... but why should I be forced to let some third party redo the object into an inferior digital version when the original is produced as a specific art object with its physicality intrinsic to its content... I'm not talking about general works, I'm hypothesising the production of a specific item where the physicality is intrinsic to its concept and value as an artistic expression... such an object doesn't require control of digital doppelgangers as such a thing can't exist, it simply requires no inferior attempt to copy the item...
You were the one stating that just because a person produced a book didn't give them any right to stop a third party digitising it even if it wasn't legally available in digital format... never mind today's technology, that's still wrong, morally, ethically and legally... there are many things that I can do but it doesn't mean that such actions are necessarily valid/correct/ethical/moral/legal just because I can do them...
|