|
One assumption frequently made in this thread which has received little scrutiny is the idea that the owner of the intellectual property has, morally, the unfettered right to deal with the work in question as they see fit. This unfettered right is irrespective of the morality of that dealing, and even extends to dealings that are themselves discriminatory or otherwise morally and ethically questionable. Many here would, for instance, be up in arms and rightly so if an author sought to deny their work or charge a higher price on the basis of, say, ethnicity or sex. I would suggest that it is clear that a rights holder is not morally entitled to deal with their work in this way, even if they could do so legally. It is not as simple as saying they are the owner, they can do absolutely anything they like with their own work and it is okay morally and ethically.
Personally, I think that an author has the moral right to withhold their work from the market completely. I do not think they have any moral right to discriminate amongst readers on the basis of where they happen to live in this world, irrespective of the particular laws involved. Remember, we are talking morality, not legality. Nor, if they seek to do so, do I think it is immoral or unethical to circumvent such discrimination by circumventing the geographical restrictions, irrespective of whether this is legal in the particular jurisdictions involved.
|