Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippe D.
This is the same flawed argument whenever comparing intellectual property and physical property.
|
Copyright as now written is flawed. The only reason there's such a huge distinction over ownership between intellectual and physical property is because a bunch of people got together and passed laws saying it was so. There's nothing inherently correct about such a distinction. It can just as easily be undone.
Quote:
|
In the case of your granddad's watch, one cannot put it into a museum without depriving you (or whoever inherited it) of it.
|
Wrong. You've had 70 years since his death to enjoy it. Now it's society's turn. You can always get a copy of the watch if you want something to look at. Of course, the copy no longer has any value since it's not the original. But then, it was never your watch to begin with. It belonged to granddad and society allowed you 70 years to exclusively enjoy its fine craftsmanship. Now it's society's turn.
Quote:
|
In the case of a litterary work (or, really, any intellectual property), you lose nothing if it is reproduced. So the law has another goal than just protecting your property.
|
Sure I do. Since I no longer control the original, I can't sell it and make a profit. It no longer has any intrinsic value. What fool is gonna pay me $9.99 for the ebook when Amazon is selling it for free?