Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinisajoy
Why should she have to pay $20 to keep her property?...
|
She is not paying $20/yr to keep her property. Her property is the intellectual work. The copyright is not property, it is a legislated right of advantage granted to her by "the many" (to borrow Hitch's terminology) through their elected (or otherwise, if not a democracy) representatives.
In the wider world it is usual that the granters of rights, of whatever sort, have some rights on their side of the agreement too and both the granter and the receiver of the right usually overtly acknowledge and respect that. As houses have been mentioned I will use those as one example. I may grant a right to a tenant to live unmolested in my house but I have the right that the house be protected by the tenant.
However, it seems to me that most authors do not see the world that way at all, and feel no responsibility whatsoever to the granters ("the many") of the right. Hence, perhaps, the concept of their regarding copyright as their own "property". In fact I find it very hard to think of one thing that authors widely recognize as being a right of "the many" and posts in this thread demonstrate the grasping and exaggerated sense of worth many authors have for themselves and their work. That said, I do know of copyright holders of important works who, after some years, have made their work downloadable free in eBook form for individual use.
Authors would, of course, come to a realization if "the many", through their elected representatives, decided to remove all copyright protection until the rights holders conceded that other people have rights too. What the rights of "the many" might be are a matter of opinion, but one might be the right to receive a payment as shalym has suggested. Whether the payment is regarded as a contribution to "the many" for their granting of the right (payment being into the Government's consolidated fund), or, for example, as a disincentive to sit on a previously published but no longer printed work does not matter.
One may not agree with that specific suggestion in which case one has to either suggest alternatives, such as shorter term of copyright, or at least agree that there should be some rights of "the many". Else one has to take the stand that "the many" who granted the right to authors in the first place have no rights at all.