Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
The default is that it is offered. Copyright is a restriction on this. A time limited restriction. So if you think that the time this restriction hold is unethical then according to your definition it is not problematic morally to copy something.
|
Actually, you are incorrect; the default position is that the copyrighted work is
not offered. I write a novel; it now exists. But unless I choose to publish it (in other words offer it for public consumption) in some fashion, either in paper or ebook format, it is not available to the public in any way shape or form.
If I do publish it, a social contract is established, under which I agree to offer the work under the understanding that the specific time limited restrictions and rights are retained by me under which I can control (to a limited extent) how people access my work. I also agree that at the end of that period of time, that my work will then be offered freely and without any controls on the work what so ever.
As citizens of democratic states, we agree to abide by the social contracts established by law. Even if we find the terms of the social contract objectionable, we are (I feel) bound to them ethically unless the terms of the social contract represent an object evil in their own right (i.e. Jim Crow and Slavery in the United States, anti-semitic policies of Nazi Germany, etc.) that exceed the evil done by breaking the contract.
Now I think it is clear that the current term of copyright is excessive; however, as long as it is for a fixed term, I can't see it as an objective evil. Further, even if it is an objective evil, its hard to see how that evil exceeds the evil of ignoring the social contract; far less harm is done by waiting for 100 years for a book to enter the public domain than is done by the breakdown of the social contract that ignoring copyright law represents.
--
Bill