Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
Spoken like a true... uh, nevermind.
OK, in all seriousness civil liberties and the "rights of the individual" are obviously a good thing [tm]. The latter (ie rights of the indiviual) must not and cannot be the be all and end all, however. Society plays a certain role, too.
|
Definitely agreed. But we are talking about the right of the author to get paid versus the "right" of other individuals to read for free. I don't see how the author's rights have any negative effect on society. Is it really better for society if works would go into public domain immediately after they are published? Why is it bad for society if an author (or the ones the author assigns the rights to) has a certain period to profit off his/her creation? Is it better for society if the author lives off welfare? Why should the "right" of some individuals to read books for free be more worthy than the right of another individual to be rewarded for his/her work?
And with regard to the surcharges for the media -- what has society as a whole gained, compared to the current system? I see this only as a last resort if we get to the point where almost nobody wants to pay for books, films, music, etc. But it is unfair to the majority of people (they might not read, they might use the media for different purposes, they might not support the way the money is being distributed).
Someone creates something of value, sells it, and makes a living. He/she contributes to society. That is good for society. Why make an arbitrary distinction between physical and digital goods? That would only make sense if nobody got paid for any work and everything was free.
For books society has a great mechanism to help those who cannot afford them. They are called libraries. But you won't convince me that society advances if those who can afford to pay become free loaders.