Quote:
Originally Posted by jswinden
I won't argue the legal standpoint, and frankly I don't care what a bunch of legal-beagles from past, present, or future think about anything. Lawyers are merely word twisters who manage to get the politicians and courts to believe what they spew out. In my opinion that does not determine right or wrong, that merely determines whose line of BS won the argument on that day. And I care not whether something has a chance of being changed or not. All I'm saying is that in my opinion a work of art like a novel should be the PROPERTY of the author until s/he sells same to another person or allows someone to inherit it. If lawyers think otherwise, then roll up a newpaper and smack 'em on the nose! Bad legal-beagle, bad boy!  |
It's not a case of lawyers, it's a case of reality. One can not own that which can not be held. It simply isn't practical. The only truly practical copyright is the case in which the book is never published.
If you are trying to make a moral argument, how much of one's labor does anyone own? Only certain groups of artists try such a claim, and frankly that's a very recent thing. What makes them different than everyone else?
The argument behind copyright is that the arts and sciences enriches society, yet the arts and sciences only enrich society if the product is not treated as property and thus is made available to society as a whole. Copyright is a social contract, not a moral right per se.