Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
The original purpose of copyright was to stimulate creative production and nothing more. And many people still think that is the correct view.
|
Current copyright law does recognize the financial interests of the artists (e.g.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf, § 801) and it's very clear that recent changes in US law, at least, intend to protect an artists' commercial interests. It is very typical for a law to grow beyond its initial scope, especially when the subject of that law takes on a different role or presence in society as time goes on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tompe
I think Stallman defends his opinions pretty well. Maybe you have not understood the arguments?
|
No, I understand his position fairly well; he believes that all digital data should be free, and payment for anything you download should be purely voluntary. Disagreement does not mean misunderstanding, especially when it's with Stallman.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Laws should take human nature and the habits of thousands of years of history into account....
|
True, especially since many laws are designed to curtail the less beneficial aspects of human nature.
But I don't see a problem with laws that protect not just the integrity of the artist, but also their financial interests as well (assuming the artist chooses to put their work into a commercial context).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
There is no innate, moral right to copy protections on one's creative efforts.
|
I'm not sure Kant would agree,
but I am not the one claiming that there is an innate right involved here. I guess you could say I view it more on the "social contract" level. Stallman's position implies that the mere ability to reproduce a digital version of an artwork:
Stallman:
"Today's digital technology enables everyone to make and share copies.... The law which was acceptable when it restricted only publishers is now an injustice because it forbids cooperation among citizens. To stop people from sharing goes against human nature...."
However, the desire to download digital content without paying for it has more than one interpretation. It could be the "desire to share freely," but it can also be a maximization of one's own economic interests at the expense of others, a desire for Free Stuff, an impulse to collect myriad objects, a wish to "stick it to The Man," and so forth. I.e. it seems to me that he is claiming a right that does not necessarily exist or may not legitimately supersede the right of an artist to control the duplication and distribution of their own works.
Moreover, it would be quite easy to suggest that unpleasant actions like theft and murder are parts of "human nature" -- they appear to have been part of humanity from the start, and we certainly haven't been able to legislate them out of existence. That hardly justifies the legitimization of these acts, yes?