Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankh
What I wanted to say was that copyright and patents ARE treated as a pure asset, UNLIKE the artistic rights.
As for the libraries, I believe that availability of books, very early in the life cycle of the copyrighted work, directly hurts book sales, hence the value of that asset.
One can not legally use patented technology without a compensation (or permission) of the owner. It is legal to rent a book from the library, and not pay a cent to the author.
|
That's because the perceived value of a patent is in the idea itself that is described, whereas for books (particularly fiction) the value was fixed in physical form. There were no photocopiers back then, so while one could read a patent and run off and copy it purely from memory, one could not do so with a book. I imagine if books were communicated telepathically copyright laws would be different (now that would make for an interesting short story). But more to the point, you are free to read a patent just like you are free to read a book without compensation. You're not free to turn around and use that patent to make money by reproducing it, just like you're not with a book.