Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Lets keep in mind however that private property rights are rarely absolute. Yes, in theory one may have perpetual ownership of a property, but in practice, property can be stripped for a variety of reasons. More than one person has found the state taking their homes or businesses to suit what it thought was a higher purpose (it would be bad enough if it was for roads, or military use, but these days it is likely for "economic development".
Intellectual property is also a totally different beast. Property in the traditional sense is a limited resource. Only one person can occupy a particular space or have physical possession of a physical object. In contrast, many people can have read stories or parse the design present in a patent application. Indeed, the very mechanism of copyright is to create artificial scarcity.
And this brings us back to the notion that copyright is a social contract. The more odious the terms of copyright, the less likely that people are going to perceive them as being fair. When a critical mass is reached people might decide it is better to just pirate because they don't believe the social contract is fair. In an age when information can be copied essentially for free, this would effectively end copyright.
In other words, it is ultimately in the interest of copyright holders to ensure that most everyone (but the most hard core pirate) see the terms of copyright as being fair to the general public. An author may believe his heirs should have perpetual rights to his work, but lets be clear, the public does not hold to such nonsense. Push too much nonsense on them and they will push back.
--
Bill
|
What you say makes sense from a practical point of view. With new technologies and digital items you depend much more on the honesty and cooperation of others. So I see no point in pushing things to the limit, and agree that publishers are currently abusing matters with prices that are higher than the pbooks and draconian DRM schemes.
That doesn't change my personal belief in the basic premise that the "social contract" is more of a smoke screen to make it sound more friendly. I don't think intellectual property should be treated different from physical property, even though it can be easily copied. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean we should do it or condone others doing it. Now many people's works can be easily distributed in digital form, not just writers. Why should society protect and value their contributions less because of it? And why should they be held up to a higher standard of social obligation than someone who bakes bread? (I don't mean that to sound derogatory in any way)
Today's society needs citizens with higher standards. Should "hey, I think that price is too high so I just take it" or "the chance that I will caught is virtually zero" really be our guiding principles here? Yes, there are plenty of abuses on the other side. But since when do the misdeeds of others justify our own?
Authors create value. If the books are sold they get money to spend and society gets additional tax income. If they have to write for free society loses just as much as the authors.