That there are people here, like Shalym (sp?), who want a book in ebook form, and therefore argue for public domain, so that s/he can obtain a copy, and argues thusly:
Quote:
Quote:
If the publisher is the copyright holder, and they refuse to publish, the rights should revert to the author. If the author isn't alive, then the rights default to the author's heirs. If the heirs refuse to re-publish a work, the work goes into the public domain (after all, the argument is that the heirs should get the monetary benefit, right?)
|
...basically nullifying copyright, and giving those who demand a copy the power of eminent domain, boggles me. "If you published a book, and have zero interest in republishing it, we get to take it," idea. It's this whole sense that someone else gets to take your bloody property that amazes me, and people think that
just because they want it, it's justifiable.
Nobody here would apply the same logic to any type of physical property, because they'd obviously know that was theft; but intellectual property? That's fair game to be taken away from the control of whomever owns it,
simply because someone else wants it. Everyone here forgets, in the endless "copyright isn't property" argument that while copyright
itself isn't property,
what it protects is: it's literary property,
as defined legally.
So, once the book has been forcibly taken away from the nefarious copyright holder who won't make it available, does the next person in line--the person who petitioned for, and got the book--then have the obligation to digitize it, and make it available for everyone? I mean, the argument is that this is being done for the public good, right?
And does that same person have the obligation to make it available, in print, for free, as well? For that part of the public that doesn't have e-readers? What, no? Why not? I mean, as we're now in the business of taking stuff away from people--stuff that has value, and belongs to them--why not go that extra step, and make sure that it's out there for everyone, whether they have an e-reader or not? Or do the "rights" of public domain now only accrue and inure to people with computers, who know how to use Project Gutenberg? And who's going to force PG to make the book? At what point do we say, "oh, no, we can't
force X to do such-and-such?" Is forcing PG to make a book
bad? I mean,
as we're all entitled to it? Should we force them to make the print copy, too? And put it on bookshelves in libraries for folks without those handy-dandy computers? Oh, but wait--who's going to pay for
that to be done? I guess that will be another new governmental department, with another New Czar, which we can fund with our apparently-endless supply of tax dollars.
....<snip>....
Seriously, done now. It's just become ridiculous. And before the whole "buddy" thing turns into ad hominem attacks or name-calling, which isn't my bag, I'm outta here.
Hitch