Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubikzz
I do not and never will recognise "Intellectual Property".
|
Yes, and I'm sure your local neighborhood cat burglar will never recognize those pesky "property rights" either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ubikzz
Nobody can own an idea, a thought, a vision, ... The fact of being the first to express such intangible things does not make one the owner.
|
Good thing we aren't discussing patents of business processes, then. A completed books is not an "intangible thought" or "vision" or a meme. I suggest you get your categories straight before making grand proclamations about the "logic" of the situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ubikzz
Every derived logic from this perceived ownership is thus void. Especially the right to financial compensation (as one of the many derivatives).
|
Yeah, no.
Let's say I spend about a year writing a novel. I approach a publisher, who sic's an editor on it, invests in marketing, and pays to have it distributed in a digital form.
If I so choose, I have every right to request compensation for the effort I've taken; and the publisher has the right to request payment for the financial and other risks they take in presenting and distributing the work. Even if there is no physical form, there is still a tremendous amount of work and effort that goes into the text. The book didn't write itself; I may have needed to spend extended periods of time conducting research; someone needed to buy advertising and so forth. If no one gets paid for this, the chances of good-quality work going into circulation does not fall to zero, but it will definitely fall.
Putting content into digital form does not reduce the costs to zero; ergo it makes sense that people who choose to be compensated have the ability to request that payment. And the ease with which digital content can be transmitted does not excuse taking content at will -- any more than the ease of shoplifting would validate the act.
More importantly, intellectual property is no more "artificial" than any other legally constructed rights or concepts. You don't pop out of the womb with a tag on your toe outlining which rights are assigned to you by nature, y'know...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ubikzz
This misconception is a relative new thing.
|
Not really. Copyright laws date back to 1710 with the Statute of Anne; it's only really necessary with mass-produced works. As to your examples, copyright doesn't apply to mere "influences," only explicitly direct copies. E.g. there were no copyright issues when Phillip Glass and Steve Reich were influenced by Terry Riley's "In C." However, if you made a copy of a famous painting and tried to pass it off as that work, that act (counterfeiting) has long been recognized and, to put it mildly, discouraged.