Theft is theft, whether it be in a traditional sense or not. You also had no part in creating your wallet I imagine? I'll take that. Oh and i find domicile laws to be nebulous and exclusive also, so I am moving in...make room on the couch.
In my mind copyright exists to protect creatives and 'allow them', heh couldn't resist, to reap the fruits of their labour. To me it is protection from studios, economic egrariasts, patsy philanthropists, plagarists and 'normals'. 'Normals', as defined by me, are those that cannot create original and thought provoking works but merely replicate and regurgitate other peoples ideas. With copyright, at least, they have to wait a good while before they can cut and paste stuff or turn it into a lame sitcom. If everything has been thought before...why are we so often surprised and delighted by an artists works? The fact that new tech and ideas are created constantly disproves this lame rational anyway imho.
I, for one, am glad The Berne Convention and international copyright treaties are drawn from the french 'rights of the author' construct as it forced many countries, your own included, to look at IP from a perspective of respect for the artists that create, and the protection of their works for posterity rather than a perspective of fiscal viability under the guise of 'for the people'.
There is provision in many countries for artists to release their rights pertaining to their work into the public domain if they so wish. Never heard of it being done though...wonder why:)
For starters the assumption that artists create to enrich society is erroneous - there are many other 'reasons' to create - i highly doubt enriching society is high up on many peoples lists unfortunately. The Tolkien Trust does in fact 'enrich' society and is in fact a registered 'trust' linked with many many charites.
In regards to IP and copyright - how can you suggest that something someone else wrote, drew or imagined should not benefit that persons heirs. How is creative output different from bricks and mortar. I build a house, i die, it goes to my children and so on and so forth through the generations. A person's legacy, whether artistic in origin or not is the theirs, they own it, they have the deed to their creation, as such they should be able to dispense with it as they see fit in their estate.
Hypothetical - Your aunt betty makes a porcelain ashtray in art class. She becomes a prominent artist and passes away. You get it as you were the most vocal about her smoking. It has a saleable worth in the millions. I turn up at your door from an art concern that wants to mass produce the design as functional headware for smokers. i demand the ashtray as it 'should' now be 'public domain' as she has passed away and give you nothing for it...dont think you'd like that. LOTR is tolkiens work, he created it, why should his family not benefit? Also his heirs seem a lot more generous and forthright than newline dont yah thunk?
Slashdot Mirror
Theft is theft, whether it be in a traditional sense or not. You also had no part in creating your wallet I imagine? I'll take that. Oh and i find domicile laws to be nebulous and exclusive also, so I am moving in...make room on the couch. In my mind copyright exists to protect creatives and 'allow them', heh couldn't resist, to reap the fruits of their labour. To me it is protection from studios, economic egrariasts, patsy philanthropists, plagarists and 'normals'. 'Normals', as defined by me, are those that cannot create original and thought provoking works but merely replicate and regurgitate other peoples ideas. With copyright, at least, they have to wait a good while before they can cut and paste stuff or turn it into a lame sitcom. If everything has been thought before...why are we so often surprised and delighted by an artists works? The fact that new tech and ideas are created constantly disproves this lame rational anyway imho. I, for one, am glad The Berne Convention and international copyright treaties are drawn from the french 'rights of the author' construct as it forced many countries, your own included, to look at IP from a perspective of respect for the artists that create, and the protection of their works for posterity rather than a perspective of fiscal viability under the guise of 'for the people'. There is provision in many countries for artists to release their rights pertaining to their work into the public domain if they so wish. Never heard of it being done though...wonder why:)
For starters the assumption that artists create to enrich society is erroneous - there are many other 'reasons' to create - i highly doubt enriching society is high up on many peoples lists unfortunately. The Tolkien Trust does in fact 'enrich' society and is in fact a registered 'trust' linked with many many charites.
In regards to IP and copyright - how can you suggest that something someone else wrote, drew or imagined should not benefit that persons heirs. How is creative output different from bricks and mortar. I build a house, i die, it goes to my children and so on and so forth through the generations. A person's legacy, whether artistic in origin or not is the theirs, they own it, they have the deed to their creation, as such they should be able to dispense with it as they see fit in their estate.
Hypothetical - Your aunt betty makes a porcelain ashtray in art class. She becomes a prominent artist and passes away. You get it as you were the most vocal about her smoking. It has a saleable worth in the millions. I turn up at your door from an art concern that wants to mass produce the design as functional headware for smokers. i demand the ashtray as it 'should' now be 'public domain' as she has passed away and give you nothing for it...dont think you'd like that.
LOTR is tolkiens work, he created it, why should his family not benefit? Also his heirs seem a lot more generous and forthright than newline dont yah thunk?