Quote:
Originally Posted by Sregener
When you buy an artistic work that is covered under copyright, your rights to use that work are limited. In other words, while you own the physical media, you don't own the content contained on that physical media and your rights to distribute, copy or otherwise change that content are restricted.
|
As covered by copyright law, that is mostly a good thing. It balances the right of the creator and the consumer. For example: the creator has exclusive rights to duplication and public performance. The consumer has the right to resell, lend out, throw away, destroy, or hoard the copy that they own. No need for licensing.
Quote:
|
Since copying has always been considered a no-no with copyright laws, and no one can deny that you cannot transfer your eBook file to a friend without copying the bits (short of handing them your ereader tied to your account), you can't create a new copy of the eBook for your friends, even if you destroy yours when you do it.
|
I agree that the inherent ability of computers to copy data, even during normal operations when a third-party (human) is not involved is inconsistent with copyright law.
Quote:
|
But as publishing becomes digital, there is this transition period in which old ways of thinking have not yet replaced new ones and there are "mistakes" being made.
|
This is where I have great concerns. I can easily envision a scenario where consumers have few, if any, property rights in the digital realm. If this becomes entrenched as a social norm, it may become a reality for physical goods as well. (For example: I've already seen license agreements for physical goods that include a microcontroller and firmware.)
The question is: how do we rebalance those rights?