Quote:
Originally Posted by nekokami
I think the original laws about copyright (again, going back to the Statute of Anne) were designed to protect authors, inventors, etc., but didn't necessarily draw the analogy to "intellectual property." I believe that's a more modern construct, and a problematic one.
I realize there are people out there (some on this board) who really, honestly believe that when they write a story or paint an image or what have you, it's their own creation, entirely, and they owe none of it to anyone else. In my considered opinion, that notion is false. I don't think any of us create in a vacuum, and we all owe some of our work to other influences around us. That's why I believe it's important to have an expiration to copyright terms, so others can continue to build on whatever we create, just as we have done before them.
This definitely runs counter to the concept of ideas being property, however. That's why I say we need a different metaphor. Perhaps ideas and creations are more like children-- we have a certain amount of control over them until they mature, and then they go out into the world to make their own way. At no time do we every really "own" them-- rather, we have custody and responsibility for them for a limited time.
|
My belief is that the confusion arises chiefly from our looking at the nature of copyright from an unnatural viewpoint. The law is stated as a grant, and we speak of ownership and protection, but the reality is that it's a restriction. The public (non-)voluntarily gives up their natural right to copy works in order to provide an incentive in a market for the creator to release them. Note I said "release them". Anyone may create anything they wish and keep it locked in their drawer/basement and owe nothing to anyone. It's when a creation is released (eg published) and the public is requested/required to abstain from exercising their natural rights relating to it that this social contract called "copyright" is engaged.
All this brouhaha is simply is simply an economic market reaction. The public is expressing the opinion that the costs associated with a class of works (instant cost in $$ + long term cost in restricted access) is greater that the works are worth. Each side has basically a couple of options. The creator can either ignore the backlash and watch the market shrink (no one would stop you from selling your pencils for $100/ea, but your customer base will be small,) or he can lower his price and broaden the market. The customer can either not purchase a work, "steal" a work, or pay the stated cost.
Those options are, of course, limited by practicality & reality. No one would complain about an
individual making outrageous demands for his works - they could just not buy it - but an entire
industry? Someone who is a reader basically only has 2 options: steal or pay. Not reading is generally not seen as an option.
NOTE: although I use the word "steal" in this post, I don't agree with using the term in association with copyright violations. But I felt it was necessary for practicality/clarity since so many people cannot/won't differentiate between the two.
Troy