[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

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:



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).

You are right about the language being beautiful but I must disagree a bit about the Goths and vandals. I also disagree about books and other creative works being priced out of the market of the common people. A few might be, but the majority would have a hard time getting the same amount of income from selling limited amounts of copies. I am sure there are those who would be happier selling one book for $1000 or more than selling thousands for $10 each, but I personally am not going to be that interested in reading a book by someone with such an elitist attitude.

Again I am not advocating perpetual copyright, I am advocating that creative people should benefit from their labours just as anyone else. Creators more than most of us are dependent on the actual worth of their efforts to society. Many get nothing and a fortunate few strike it big. Life is not and never will be fair. I make $60+ an hour doing mindless menial work, that strangely enough I actually enjoy, and many people work a lot harder for a lot less, often creative people in creative avocations. If one of them strikes it big and his/her heirs continue to benefit for a few years after their death, I think it is far more incentive to keep people writing than telling them that they are privileged to be able to sell their works at all.

Intellectual property may not be granted the same rights under the law as so called real property, but the law is not a stagnate entity and has even been found to be wrong on occasion (finding big rock to hide behind)

Helen