Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
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.
|
I am not talking about either prices or DRM schemes here. Those are simply misuses of the powers that copyright grants and that would be true even if copyright was much shorter than it now is. Specifically I am talking about the notion that copyright should be treated the same as physical property including the notion that tubemonkey has that it should be perpetual.
Quote:
|
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)
|
Again, I am not supporting people breaking copyright. Authors should have a fair chance to receive compensation for their work. What I and most others here are arguing is that copyright terms are currently unreasonably long (too long actually for the benefit of all but an elite few authors).
That being said, by its very nature copyright must treat its subject different than physical property. You referenced the baker. Yes, it would be wrong for me to steal bread from him; no one however would complain if I watched how he made bread, and then made my own bread in an identical fashion. In other words, copying his bread is perfectly legal. If we applied the same standards to books, it might be illegal to steal copies of books, but it would be perfectly legal to make your own copies and sell them.
Quote:
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.
|
Again, we are talking about the term of copyright here. I don't think many of us support abandoning copyright, or if we do it should be replaced in a way that allows authors to still receive compensation for their work.
What we are talking about is the notion that copyright should be perpetual (which you said you don't believe in anyway) or even just really long. In a culture where new art has always been built on top of older art, overly lengthy terms of copyright are becoming harmful to development of new culture.
--
Bill