Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
To go back to the restaurant example, it would be saying instead of requiring you offer disabled access or be fined and eventually shut down, saying that you can run your restaurant without disabled access, but anyone else can come along and steal your chairs, tables, food, menu, and so on and put up an identical restaurant with disabled access using your name on it.
Does this make sense?
|
Not really as we are talking about Intellectual property. More like if you are that restaurant we should be allowed to steal your secret family recipe for excellent chicken wings.
the case here is that whats "Morally" right is currently Illegal to do in many countries when it comes to IP. this proposal plans to extend the letter of the law to conform to what is "moral" but you are disagreeing that based on the Letter of this proposed law people would be able to steal your work. but what I think you are forgetting is the spirit of the law.
based on the spirt of the law, as written, you would have the rights to your work at all times, except when a disability makes it impossible for that person to experience your work. if you, as an author, or your publisher, decide to cater to that disability in your own way, which any normal person could say, Yes, that is reasonable, and another company tries to pass your work off for cheap or free without your permission, you have the right to sue them, for example, you have a kindle book which hast TTS disabled, and you have a way to give a disabled person a TTS Enabled version of the text, any reasonable person would say that another person selling another verson of the text without your permission with the same functionality is in the wrong.
If you don't have a copy catered to someone with a disability, someone else will make it for you, since this was never a sale in the first place, you arent losing anything and no one is stealing from you.
IP laws either don't exist, or those that do were written by the people trying to take away rights from the average consumer, so those laws that are on the books don't match with what an average person would think is morally right. anyone reading this law would say this is a law which matches with what a person thinks is morally right