Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
Not sure what you mean by killer argument. I was not attempting to kill the discussion at all. Nor was I trying to prove my correctness or anything like that, which could conceivably require "killing" schex86's argument.
May I ask, did you actually read and understand my comment and its context or merely quote and respond?
I did not remark upon an authors wishes for their work.
I commented upon the reason why an author may write the work in the first place.
Do you see the difference?
As your point doesn't address mine in any way I don't see any reason to respond futher to yours.
Cheers,
PKFFW
|
Quote:
I commented upon the reason why an author may write the work in the first place.
Do you see the difference?
|
Well yes, but so what? I don't see how that argument applies to the point being made by the person you were responding to [tortured sentence, I know], which is why I interpreted it the way I did. Once the work is released to the public, it exists independently of the author. Readers may read something completely different to what was intended to the author. It may be parodied in ways incredibly distasteful to the author, and indeed counter to the reasons he wrote it.
The author (or his heirs) are paid because of the ways the copyright laws are written. If written differently he might not be compensated, or compensated as well, or compensated differently.
I have no problems with authors being compensated for their work, but there's no natural right to this. Its an artificial legal right which was created (at least in the US) because it was felt this would encourage the production of more creative works. An "evil" (monopoly/restriction) would be compensated for by a good (more IP). It was seen as a tradeoff.
Or am I still missing some aspect of your argument?