Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I don't know. I was referring to the general principle that it's the copyright holder's decision to make, whether or not we agree, rather than to this specific case. From what's been said, it sounds as if it was the agent.
|
In the U.S., the essence of copyright law is not "protection of the author's interests" but "encouragement of the development of ideas for the public." Giving the author a lot of control over the use of their works is a means to that end; it's not the goal in itself.
Freedom of speech clashes directly with copyright law, and the right to share ideas one finds interesting--in any format one wishes--is only to be mitigated by a strong public need. "Authors should make more money" is not a strong public need*, but "Authors should be willing to make their works public" is.
I agree with the logic that says authors should have control over a lot of the uses of their works, in order to encourage them to publish. (I disagree with the current time limits, but that's a different issue.) However, I don't agree that that control should extend to "people of [x] category should not be reading my works." And that includes "people who prefer to read on a screen instead of paper" in addition to "people who aren't able to read books on paper.
If they publish, they should be able to exploit the market; that's not the same as "they should be allowed to stifle any markets they disagree with," any more than they can legitimately disallow critique of their works, or study of them in a classroom.
*Why should authors have more right to control the use of their works than, for example, auto manufacturers? Certainly if they were allowed to dictate when and where people could drive, they could make a lot more money selling weekend-only cars vs full-use cars. They could make a lot more money if you had to pay them based on how many miles you drive. Getting money to any particular creator is not a valid reason to curtail other people's use of what they've purchased or learned.