The Underscore Archives

On 12 Feb 2007, at 16:24, Pete Fairhurst wrote:

> Theft is theft for sure, but when does "theft" end and "free
> mass-market promotion" begin?

I suppose that point is when the author loses control of the work in  
question.

Intellectual property rights are really more about control than  
profit, as you can derive profit from that control.  By infringing  
copyright on something, you're not only depriving the artist of  
profit, but also of control of their work.

If an author wants to freely distribute their work, then they're  
welcome to.  However, someone else shouldn't make that choice for  
them.  It's the difference between taking stuff down to Oxfam, and  
people looting your house.  Same effect: net loss of stuff in your  
house.

Take, for example, Stanley Kubrick exerting his rights over the UK  
distribution of A Clockwork Orange.  That application of control was  
contrary to profit, as he had other priorities in mind.

Interestingly, copyright didn't really start this way, if I remember  
correctly.  A creative work was the property of mankind, and you were  
merely granted the privilege of a limited-time monopoly by the  
state.  Now, "limited time" means "Infinity minus a day".

In the real world, most of the moral rights are fairly soiled by the  
media industry: RIAA, MPAA, the Big Four, the studio system, and so  
forth... heavily one-sided contracts forced on artists, for example.   
As a result, I have less qualms about nicking from a big company than  
an independent.  If it's good, I'll probably end up buying it anyway.

Big Business doesn't always see IPRs as solely profit centres,  
though.  Some media barons (Hearst, Maxwell and Murdoch come to mind)  
use them as political tools for ideological purposes.  It's usually  
even more insidious than just profit making.

Tom

-- 
Tom Gidden
http://gidden.net/tom/