Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
I'm sure artists have complete control over what they create as long as they don't publish it. When it's published, they lose much of that control.
|
The purpose of copyright laws, in the US, is to encourage that publication by granting them some control after they publish.
Without those rights--a limited-term monopoly on some uses of their creative work--there's much less incentive to publish. Certainly much less incentive to publish widely, and more incentive to seek out reclusive patrons who don't want to share the work.
More incentive for, perhaps, releasing a novel online in serial format, with a PayPal button and a notification, "I'll release the next chapter when I get $X." Or a login system, that only shows the novel to people who've paid $X to get in, and the novel itself is in streaming flash format, not impossible to copy but difficult.
Or, as we're noticing, refusing to allow authorized digital versions at all. Yes, there are bootleg versions of almost all popular novels... but there are not bootleg versions of most textbooks, most nonfiction books, most books of the last eighty years that didn't make the Big Important Books lists.
This is because the artists (or their literary heirs, whoever they are) are nervous about being able to get compensation for their work--compensation the law allows them to demand. Saying, "you shouldn't have the rights to that; people should just take it" is not making them more likely to publish.
If you want to hasten the full digitization of all interesting human creativity, find a way to promote the idea that doesn't outrage the people who've created it. Lobby for shorter copyright lengths; don't try to convince people to follow the law they think should exist. Offer solutions to copyright laws that don't boil down to "the artist should only get paid if people feel like they can afford it, and they should have access to his works regardless of that."
Lobby for ebook sellers working out a transfer-of-ownership option for their DRMd books. Lobby for software that actually moves a file from one place to another, not just copies it. Lobby for better understanding of copyright laws, so artists & authors don't think they're obligated to file legal objections to fans who quote their works on fan sites.
Arguing for the removal of copyright law just makes you look greedy and selfish. It's like arguing for the abolition of union protections because some union leaders are corrupt, or because you're annoyed that a local strike made your life difficult for a few weeks.