Feb. 24th, 2006

ksmith: (Default)
I read this, and I ponder. Especially this statement by [livejournal.com profile] tnh in [livejournal.com profile] makinglight:

It is right that what's new and unique in a writer's work be recognized as peculiarly their own. That's fine. But copyright is not a statement of inalienable natural right. It's a social convention, intended to reward (and thus encourage) writers and publishers to produce more books. To pervert it into a claim of perpetual ownership, especially when that claim is being forwarded by large entertainment conglomerates, is the moral equivalent of driving a fence around the commons.

I will admit that I do not currently make a bulk of my income from my copyrights. I would be interested in hearing how someone who does feels about some of these discussions.

More behind the cut )
ksmith: (Default)
I read this, and I ponder. Especially this statement by [livejournal.com profile] tnh in [livejournal.com profile] makinglight:

It is right that what's new and unique in a writer's work be recognized as peculiarly their own. That's fine. But copyright is not a statement of inalienable natural right. It's a social convention, intended to reward (and thus encourage) writers and publishers to produce more books. To pervert it into a claim of perpetual ownership, especially when that claim is being forwarded by large entertainment conglomerates, is the moral equivalent of driving a fence around the commons.

I will admit that I do not currently make a bulk of my income from my copyrights. I would be interested in hearing how someone who does feels about some of these discussions.

More behind the cut )

August 2025

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829 30
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2025 03:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios