Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
But we are talking about the right of the author to get paid versus the "right" of other individuals to read for free.
|
Well, neither of them is a natural, God-given right. Both exist, if in fact they do, because there's a law that says so. Both are usually not an absolute right, both have exceptions. The whole concept of "intellectual property" is an artificial one, and usually introduced much later into a society than the concept of tangible property as such.
Quote:
|
Is it really better for society if works would go into public domain immediately after they are published?
|
Not necessarily, no. I think a certain period of protection, of exclusivity if you will, is warranted. It allows artist and creators to live off their work without being ripped off immediately (if successful). The
"Founder's Copyright" struck a nice balance, in my opinion: 14 years of protection, renewable once for a total of 28 years. We can talk about the length of the term, but the principle is clear: you don't "own" the work but the legal system lets you use it exclusively as you see fit for a limited period of time. Pretty much like a patent, really, come think of it.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Who said it was? Not me. I just don't think life + 70 years is a balanced approach any more.
Quote:
|
Why make an arbitrary distinction between physical and digital goods?
|
Because they
are different, and any distinction is by no means arbitrary.
Quote:
|
They are called libraries. But you won't convince me that society advances if those who can afford to pay become free loaders.
|
It's not just about reading books. It's about building upon previous works ("standing on the shoulders of giants", you know, that sort of thing), compiling, assembling, quoting, presenting in a new way...