Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
What is copyright? It a grant of limited monopoly to ecourage the creation of new intellectual products. It is done for the long term benefit of the public (to whom the product will eventually revert), not the creator. It is an economic construct, not a moral one. As such, one should be able to show economic harm before going to court. If there is no effort to make a product available for profit, no economic harm can be shown. If you want to have a situation for prevention of a product from being produced digitally, then I would recommend a continuing tax/fee be paid to the copyright authorities. Then you can show harm (the tax/fee costs) for a court case. This is more detail that I planned to go into, but you wanted an answer...
All forms of real property get taxes in all sorts of jurisdictions, I'm very tired of I.P. people thinking they don't have to pay for anything, but get all the benefits of their creation, and endless control.
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.
|
The only thing a creator owes to society is to pay his taxes on profits from the sales of his books. It makes no sense that a craftsman has undisputed control over his works, but an author does not.
Copyright is as much for the benefit of the creators as for society. And it is not necessarily in society's best interest to see that people get freebies. That does not create value, protecting authors usually does (not always, of course).