|
I'm not going to try to reply to each individually as so many posts were made over night. Instead, I'm just going to list some points I think are pertinent.
1: Xenephon and Elfwreck have made a lot of good points.
2: Copyright, as it currently stands, I do agree is flawed. It lasts way too long for starters. However, I do not think the idea of simply abolishing it is a good solution. Personally I would be happy with copyright until death. If I create a story then frankly I should have control over it at least until I am dead and buried. Just because something is flawed though does not mean there aren't good points inherent in it. Copyright was initially started as a way of encouraging people to put their creative works out there whilst being assured they would be protected from unscrupulous people simply making copies. Why not try to go back to that original ideal rather than simply saying "it's so easy to make copies now the creator should just accept it and give up any ideas of ownership or being compensated for their work".
As for two people coming up with the same story purely by chance.........sorry tough luck. That may happen once in every few million years by chance.(in fact it is such a remote possibility I wasn't even going to bother responding to the idea but figured why not) On the other hand, someone simply reading another person's story and copying it and claiming they wrote it themselves would happen very frequently. I would say it would be impossible to determine if the second person had come up with the idea themselves or if they had copied it so an arbitrary decision has to be made regarding how the situation will be treated. Since it would be virtually impossible for two people to come up with the exact same story independantly yet very easy for one to copy another then it makes sense to treat the situation as the latter.
3: The idea that once an author publishes their work they should loose all control over it and not have rights towards it is simply ridiculous. On the one hand it seems many are arguing that by going the "self publishing" route an author has more control over their work and this is a good thing. On the other hand, these same people are arguing that once an author does that they should not have any right or expectation to say how it may be distributed. The logic boggles me.
4: Money Vs Joy of creating..............it's a bit of red-herring really. I don't think it has to be one or the other at all. Why should an aspiring writer not be able to enjoy creating whilst at the same time harbour a dream of being able to support themselves by that writing? There is no law that states if you enjoy doing something then you have no right to expect to be paid for it. This idea that if a writer really enjoys what they are doing(and therefore is doing it for the "right reasons") then they should have no problem giving their work away for free and just hoping and praying money will follow is just that........an idea. That idea is no more or less valid than the idea that this same author thoroughly enjoys writing but wants a reasonable payment(whatever that is deemed to be) before they will distribute their work for people to read. Neither is more noble, neither has any more claim to be in it for the "right reasons". In both cases the writer is thoroughly enjoying what they are doing.
On that note, I'm not going to argue about which may or may not provide greater monetary reward in the end. That is not my point and frankly I don't think there is enough evidence to prove one way or the other anyway.
5: People will pay..........sorry, a few high profile cases where giving the creative work away for free has led to that same work being rewarded monetarily doesn't mean a whole lot. At the moment most people on the whole still believe in the principle of paying a fair price for something they want. As the idea of "I can get it for free so therefore I have the right to enjoy it for free and the creator should just accept this and give it to me for free" becomes more common and accepted, less and less people will feel any need to pay anything at all for what they want, regardless of how good it is or how much enjoyment or value they received. In the end, most people will believe they have every right to enjoy whatever they want for free. How many writers do you think will be able to support themselves by writing then? I'm betting alot less than do so now. So how many do you think will ever be able to devote enough time to their writing to become truly great at it or even truly worth reading? I would say very few indeed. How much choice for art truly worth enjoying do you think we the audience will have then?
Before I once again get accused of arguing for the old stagnant ways of corporate greed and big publishing companies taking advantage of authors and screwing the audience, of living in the past man.........I am not!
I agree the present system is not perfect. Self publishing may very well be the way forward for many authors in the future and good for them.
What I am arguing against is tearing down everything, throwing out the baby with the bath water as they say.
Creators should have rights. The fact they have published their work should not mean they are no longer entitled to any control over it or payment for it. If that were the case, where do you draw the line? Would it be ok for someone to change the last chapter and then call it their own and re-sell it? What about just changing the names of the characters? How about simply changing the name of the story? I mean, they published it so they shouldn't expect any control over it anymore right? That idea is ridiculous to me.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|