Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
That is strange. You are not depriving anybody of the right just because the government does not succeed in all cases to enforce your wishes. The "exclusive right" is legal right and it is still there even if somebody copy your work without permission.
|
Really? If you can (legitimately) violate my "exclusive right" any time you feel like it, that makes it not so very exclusive... doesn't it? (Let's ignore fair-use for the moment, to make the discussion simpler.) When you copy my work without my permission, you've certainly de-valued the exclusivity.
That very control is the "thing" you are taking away. It's up to the copyright owner to decide whether they use the control to make money, to give the work to the world, or to deny all access to all people. And they get to make that decision right up until the copyright expires, but not thereafter.
Please note: whether or not you can "get away with" the copying (in the sense of not getting caught) is not the question here. Similarly, many copyright holders may choose (as a matter of good business practice) to give away copies of their work under circumstances of their choice. There's a strong argument to be made that it's a good idea (business-wise) to do so. See Eric Flint's copyright musings over at Jim Baen's Universe or Cory Doctorow's experience with giving away eCopies of his books for just a couple of examples.
Nevertheless, the point remains -- the choice of terms for availability of the work rests with the copyright holder,
not with you.
Remember that there
are lots of examples of intangibles that you may not freely deprive others of. Your loud party is not allowed to impinge on my quiet enjoyment of my property (during certain hours set by local statute). I'm not allowed to publicly lie about your actions and character -- that's either slander or libel depending on the details. The intangibility of the exclusive right is no different from the intangibles I just mentioned.
Xenophon