Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
Is it simply that intellectual property can be so easily copied now that people think the value is in the electromagnetic arrangements rather than the abstract concept they represent? Perhaps the logic is that since I can easily have a million copies of something, the value of any one of those copies must be negligible. So here, give me the original and I'll make a million copies, but I'll only read one of them and pay the creator one millionth of the cover price.
None of this is to argue that copyright should be longer or permanent, there are other factors at play, but I do wonder if our view of the value of intellectual property is being unjustly distorted by technology.
|
No bit of fiction stands on its own. Everything borrows from what came before. Once the idea of monetizing every idea takes hold, where will it end? It may seem far fetched right now, but there's no reason the same kind of patent trolls that are strangling technological progress won't move into the arts as well. It all depends on how cheaply they can do it and what kind of money they can pull out of it. Will authors be willing to face a law suit over some plot development if accused of copying some previously published work owned by a publishing troll? I think this "Intellectual property" business is going to bite the artists in the ass more than it will help them down the road, because it plays into the hands of those who make their living out of this kind of stuff.