Quote:
Originally Posted by Apache
The point is that if the copyright holder does not want it available then he is perfectly within his rights. Just because someone wants to read it does not make it right or legal to force the copyright holder to relinquish their rights. If I have the copyright to my diary and do not want it published no one should have the right to force me to give up my copyright. And if it contained information about a crime a judge could give the government the right to read it within the legal parameters of the crime committed. They would not have the right to publish or make the diary available to others. Whether it is intellectual property or real property, within the guidelines of the law I have to right to dispose of it as I see fit.
Apache
Apache
|
That's pretty much a red herring. If you don't want anyone to read your diary, then don't publish it. There are other laws that allow you to keep your private papers private, at least while you are alive.
The bottom line is that copyright is a bargain between society and an author. You get a government enforced monopoly on copying that work for a limited duration. In return, it goes into public domain for the betterment of society at the end of that time period. Copyright holders are keen on society upholding the monopoly part of the bargain, but not so keen on the other side of the deal. A work that isn't available to the public at large, doesn't do much towards the goal of bettering society.
The view of copyright as the property of the artist is a very new idea. For all practical purposes, the main driver behind this idea was Victor Hugo, the French author in the 1880's. It's really only become "a thing" since the 1960's as more and more money pored into movies, music and to a much lesser extent, books. As is always the case, one has to follow the money.