Quote:
Originally Posted by Quoth
Yes, absolutely the law is that they own the copyright entirely because you are purely hired.
But it's actually legalised intellectual theft.
|
No it isn't, and just saying so doesn't make it true.
They haven't stolen the work I produced, they have bought it from me, bit by bit, hour by hour, at a rate agreed upon as a salary, in advance. This was known to both sides before I started the job.
It is as far from theft as you can get.
Quote:
Programming isn't like production assembly, serving in a shop or restaurant, support in a call centre. It's mostly a creative intellectual activity built on prior art.
[...]
Designing and implementing software isn't an activity that only happens at the desk in hours, and like writing a novel, it's not an automatic style of activity like non-creative jobs.
|
I know, I have done it all my life.
I've never thought that the work the company has paid me to do should belong to me rather than them.
As I asked before, why on earth would they pay me to produce something I then owned and could control how they used?
Quote:
|
There needs to be reform. There should be a sharing of the copyright.
|
As someone actually doing this, seems to be working fine as-is.
If I wanted to take the risk and benefit myself, I'd have started my own software house, developed software and tried to market it. Like an author writing their own books.
Instead, I'm much happier for someone else to take that risk and benefit, in return for a guaranteed salary, and a job I enjoy. Like an in-house writer.
Why do you think that both roles shouldn't exist?
Quote:
|
Exactly the attitude of Stratemeyer Syndicate and Disney. That's why I referenced Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. Programmers are mostly treated worse than Ghost Writers, who may or may not have copyright, but morally should have a proportion of the royalties.
|
Why?
They agreed to do a job, for a price, knowing in advance that that price was all they would get. If they were guaranteed a share of the royalties, then the up-front payment would be less.
They've chosen, as I have, to take a safer fixed income, rather than a riskier, but possibly higher income. Why should they be prevented from doing that?