Writers do gain from their labours, so there's no argument there. However, they don't get a monopoly on those labours as some natural right and I don't think they should.
Why shouldn't Google become keepers and archivists if they're not stopping anyone else from doing the same (which was an issue in a proposed settlement between Google and the Writers' Guild)? Having books searchable makes them easier to find, and providing links to where they can be bought once they are found makes them easier to buy; society is benefited by getting more access to books and authors of obscure works benefit by getting another opportunity to sell their books. Saying that this makes someone a "slave to the system" is hyperbole.
And what purpose is served by giving writers even more control? The reason they are given any control at all is to encourage creativity, but there's a law of diminishing returns to that and at some point it actually does harm the overall creativity of a culture and to writers individually. Writers are well-served if they can apply and remix the ideas of other writers, and it doesn't benefit anyone if a writer can lock up the expression of their ideas forever; think of all the great works that have resulted from people adapting the plays of Shakespeare or stories from the Bible as two easy examples. You are mistaken if you think this only affects big companies.
On this last point, I'll just end with a snippet from a 1773 case from England where Lord Kames explains the benefit of limited control:
Quote:
|
Lastly, I shall consider a perpetual monopoly in a commercial view. The act of Queen Anne is contrived with great judgement, not only for the benefit of authors, but for the benefit of learning in general. It excites men of genius to exert their talents for composition; and it multiplies books both of instruction and amusement. And when, upon expiration of the monopoly, the commerce of these books is laid open to all, their cheapness, from a concurrence of many editors, is singularly beneficial to the public. Attend, on the other hand, to the consequences of a perpetual monopoly. Like all other monopolies, it will unavoidably raise the price of good books beyond the reach of ordinary readers. They will be sold like so many valuable pictures..... [the] booksellers, by grasping too much, would lose their trade altogether; and men of genius would be quite discouraged from writing, as no price can be afforded for an unfashionable commodity. In a word, I have no difficulty to maintain that a perpetual monopoly of books would prove more destructive to learning, and even to authors, than a second irruption of Goths and Vandals.
|
The issue really is that intellectual property is not property, and people are mistaken when they start trying to import physical property rights into the world of copyright. In his judgement, Lord Kames discusses at length (and using some really great language) why intellectual property is something different entirely, and I'd recommend reading it if you have an interest (I might be able to provide).