Thinking...thinking...

I read this, and I ponder. Especially this statement by tnh in 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 )

Thinking...thinking...

I read this, and I ponder. Especially this statement by tnh in 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 )