Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdahler
I suppose, in the selfishness that is increasingly the hallmark of thought in this day and age, you never stopped to consider in the midst of your rationalization that the author might perhaps care about the lost royalties from this "it doesn't hurt anyone" scheme. You are focusing on the reading public, as though they are the ones who even matter, as though, when an author spends months or years creating a work, that the public has some kind of God-given right to read it. That's complete and utter horse manure. If I write a book and you want to read it, you can pay me what I want for it or you can do without. I couldn't care less if you want to move along rather than paying the fee, but I would care very much if you replied that you had no intention of paying me for the privilege of reading my work and instead would just go illegally copy it from someone else. Sugarcoat it however you want in an attempt to justify it, but when you illegally copy or distribute a copyrighted work that you would have otherwise had to pay for, then you are indeed stealing from the author for your own convenience.
|
Theft vs. Infringement - why is it so hard to distinguish the difference?
Mr. Author creates a work. The moment it is fixed in a tangible format it automatically belongs to society (it is now firmly in the public domain). After all, as Mr. Author has has created his work in close co-operation with society it follows that naturally, Mr. Author cannot claim exclusive rights over his creation. He has utilised the education society has given him, made use of the conventions of the culture of the society he lives in and his creation is inseparable from the norms and values of others (past and present) who live in the same society. We thank Mr. Author for his gift.
Now, government in it’s wisdom (?) may have granted Mr. Author a limited time monopoly in which he can attempt to exploit his creation for monetary gain, but this license he has been allowed is not his guarantee of making any profit for himself. All it does is temporarily stop any other Tom, Dick or Harry from engaging in the very same exploitation that Mr. Author is attempting to practice.
Truly, for if society does not own the said creation, his government would not have the ability to take it away from society (the public domain) and licence it exclusively (for a limited time) to Mr. Author.
That is the basis for the difference between infringement and theft. Licence vs. ownership.
As a member of society — you cannot steal something that belongs to you in the first instance.
The monopoly hoarders with their stupid DRM keep telling you the same thing — you may have LICENSED this e-book, but you don’t OWN it!
Well Mr. Author, you may be attempting to exploiting whatever it is you have created under a licence given to you on MY behalf by the government — but you sure as hell don’t OWN it.
Oh and by the way, yes I have stopped and considered that Mr. Author might perhaps care about his lost royalties — but I have always been under the impression that authors produced their best and most notable works when they starving in a garrett somewhere. They tell me it’s inspirational or something
I’m only doing my bit to inspire you!