Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros
I'm not a crank on this subject and don't plan to go on forever with it ... but this seems like a specious argument to me. Words are not random. By creating a character and story, the writer has produced something unique. Not only should he own (and be able to sell) his own UNIQUE production but he should have the right to control how his creation is used by others — and he should have the ability to pass his production (his creation) down to his children.
As for building a chair that can't be copied... Manufacturers can patent specific designs that can't be copied. Or make smartphones that can't be copied. (Try to manufacture an iePhone — the "e" is silent — sometime and see how far this "free to copy" concept takes you). Every unique character and story is automatically specific. I just think a writer should have the right to his or her own work. It wasn't written by the "Collective," it was written by one person. That person should control what they produce.
|
But why should a writer uniquely be able to do so, other than you assert that is the way it should be? Patents and copyrights are embedded in the US Constitution which is why they are uniquely protected under US law, but it also expressly says that this government granted monopoly is for a limited time.