Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Rob <removethispatchoulian@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 20:04:03 +0000 (UTC)
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <dhuvlh$cs2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rob <removethispatchoulian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
'Copyright' appears and is owned by the author as soon as the work is created. The author may assign/rent/sell/permit/etc various copyrights, but that is a matter for them. If they have sold or rented rights, then the body or person who obtained the rights would have the relevant control.
Yes, OK, I sort of know that. It's just *I think* copyright does more to stifle innovation, reward and dissemination than it creates. It's just my view, and I think you disagree, and that's fine.
That is really a matter of how people choose to use it.
OK, sorry - the way copyright is used does more to stiffle (etc.)
The above is fine with me. It means the author decides if they want to give work away, or charge for it, etc. Their work, their choice. Otherwise, why should they bother in the first place?
That's a fettered choice.
In what way? The author decides how their work may be deployed or used.
it is only 'fettered' so far as someone else is concerned. e.g. if they
want the work for free, but the author expects payment. However in such
cases I'm afraid my sympathy tends to be with the author.
The decision to copyright is often either a condition of publication, or not known (at least in detail) by the author. Thinking music here as the best example - but it's not *necessary*.
I regard it as a moral right of the author, and hence expect the law to accord with that.
I think when you use the words 'moral right' it's necessary to look at the intent of the perpetrator (for want of a better label) - if someone is using something that isn't theirs, and attributes that use explicitly (names the author) or implicitly (downloads a song), and no harm comes from it (beyond perhaps a dented author's ego) I see no moral problem.
I do, since the work is not theirs to treat in such a way. There may be 'harm'. The author may be denied payment. They may find the way that the work is being distributed affects their reputation. e.g. They may find it harder to sell other work as anyone who might have bought may think, "Why bother to pay him for it when if I wait someone else will let me have a pirate copy for nothing?" There may also be 'harm' to people who pay for a pirated version when they might have got a cheaper or better one by paying the author.
I can appreciate that theft is attractive to the thief, and that people
like to think they are "causing no harm". But the point is that this is not a decision they are entitiled to make.
Your opinion on morals is all well and dandy. It's quite unlike you to say what people can and can't do - is that what you meant?!
fair enough, but in a capatalist/market system the author has to sell his work, just as do others.
They don't have to.
Indeed. It is the author's choice, and then a matter for others if they wish to pay or go without.
OK
However I am also concerned about publishers and organisations who make copies and distribute them *to make money* without consulting the author or getting permission. This goes on, and is piracy or theft. It steals from the author who might otherwise get payment for their work. It steals from the purchasers who are being tricked into paying for what they might have got at lesser (or zero) cost.
Well, that's a rather different argument and is simply exploitation - although I would imagine from your comments above (**) legal redress exists, absence of legal aid notwithstanding.
It does in principle. However trying to sue someone (civil matter) in a distant country with different laws may be somewhat problematic.
Until recently, countries like Russia and China (and some others) simply declined to recognise copyright, and freely pirated textbooks, etc. Indeed, at one time India did a lot of this, and so did the USA! By denying the author and assigned publisher the trade, the price for those who *did* pay was higher. Thus both the author and those who bought the 'legitimate' version were 'harmed'. This still goes on a great deal in various parts of the world. In some cases the texts were hastily copied and hence had serious errors or omissions, thus misleading the readers. Also potentially quite harmful.
I'm afraid the main harm I see is those without money being unable to access stuff. I accept your point on poor copies - but then I'd argue that is an outcome of the way copyright is used.
And you must concede that your argument (piracy pushes up prices) is not cut and dried. It certainly doesn't apply in my case.
The problem is that once you start to try and excuse such piracy on the basis that "I want a copy and I don't want to pay what the copyright holders are asking" then you may do 'harm' regardless of believing otherwise...
It's just that I think copyright does more harm than good. You think it does more good than harm. Etc. ...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- References:
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Rob
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Rob
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- From: Jim Lesurf
- Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- Prev by Date: Re: Valve socket search?
- Next by Date: Hitachi ax-m69 Hi-Fi: How can I adjust the Bass and Trebble???
- Previous by thread: Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- Next by thread: Re: Patents, Royalties and other Scams...???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|