Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
In no particular order (because why not?):
A book reviewer doesn't need the permission of the author or publisher to quote their book because of fair use in the U.S. (fair dealing in other jurisdictions), regardless of whether or not the reviewer was provided a copy of the book. No permission is implied because no permission is necessary.
Amazon probably doesn't just go ahead and offer Look Inside on all books because it is in their business interest to keep authors and publishers happy. However, getting permission doesn't necessarily mean you are obligated at law to get permission, it's sometimes just useful for business.
A handshake deal can still be a contract, and copyright is different from the law of contract; it's a "bargain" in the sense that the public is asked to give up something to promote creative works. My original point was that people confuse copyrightable works with regular property that they control, and that is simply not correct. Without copyright, you would lose control of any work you disseminate; with copyright, you are granted a limited monopoly to control reproduction. The 9th Circuit Appeals Court in the U.S. describes it this way:
|
Doesn't seem to be a bargain to me, but probably it is defined as a bargain by law.
My opinion only is that people should gain from their labour if it is useful to others, even if it is intellectual in nature.
I can understand a very important work being pre-empted or a crucial piece of property if it is deemed necessary for safety concerns for instance or will save countless lives etc.
Whether saving/distributing works of popular or non popular fiction falls under these categories, seems a bit iffy to me.
I won't trot out all of the tired arguments involving pharmaceuticals etc. as I am sure you are more knowledgeable of them than I am. I do think that authors, inventors, and other creative types will continue to write, invent etc. just as gamblers will gamble and most people will work to support their families. It is the nature of the beast. Life will not change because of copyright infringement.
But I do not approve of Google taking it upon themselves to become the keepers and archivists of everything written and being allowed to do so because they are a large entity and it is convenient for many to have them do so.
In this instance I feel that the individual rights of the artist should prevail or they are nothing but slaves to the system with no choice of their own in this particular matter. They should at the very least have recourse to takedown notices such as major movie companies have.
I also feel that the idea that giving the actual creators more 'monopolistic control' will stop creativity to be fairly ludicrous and that the vast majority of the harm that is done by not allowing access to info is much more prevalent in the corporate world, where it id being controlled, not by the creator, but by the business people who bought rights to the idea or even in some cases their lawyers.
Thanks for the interesting reply.
Helen
.