Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
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?
...
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.
|
Because you're twisting the argument, I'm not accepting your premise. Why should the "right" of some individuals to control how something is used be more worth than the right of another individual to create something new out of it? When you focus only on money you may find it east to demonize people who do what you don't like but free doesn't just mean you don't have to spend money to use something, it means you can use something any way you'd like.
I mean sure you could have a valid debate on weather society would be better if anyone could have any book or any time to read. There's more than just fiction out there but as you point out a library is a good compromise.
A library however doesn't give permission to make fan fiction or paint a scene based on your favorite scene in Stephen King's latest bestseller. Even if you can pay the license to make a derivative work of some kind the copyright holder can still say no I don't like YOUR idea. That slows progress, that's bad for society.
Basically if you think new creations are good for society then every year of copyright/patent is a year delay for another creation. If you believe creating is just a job then I have to ask why any one profession needs to be protected from a free market in what they're selling? If you believe creating is socially useful but people won't do it without some incentives then we can look back to the first part of the paragraph and work out a formula that maximizes the number of creations per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
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.
|
It isn't arbitrary nor does treating the two different mean that all economies must suddenly crash. Digital has no scarcity you never run out, it has infinite durability, it can never wear out. An idea is not a chair its closer to a virus. You can give your cold to everyone around you and not feel less sick, never lose anything for having shared your sneezes with the world. If you want to sell or buy digital stuff, cool, growing economy more jobs more people pay taxes libraries get bigger budgets, get bigger buildings with more books, attach rockets to the buildings and then LIBRARIES IN SPACE! How cool is that?
But I digress. Different lays because they are well, different. Real estate laws are different because somewhere down the line people noticed that standing on a piece of ground is not the same as having a trinket in your pocket. Producing an idea isn't the same as producing a hammer. This is not the same as demanding that all things must not have cost.