Talk:Respecting Rights

Comments
I take issue with the tone of this. I agree that an artist that can make a living creating can make more creative works than one who has to make a living during the day and create during their free time. But there is an implication throughout that creators should have a right to control their work as property. This is flawed.

Creative works transmitted on objects (cds, paper dvds etc) are subject to property because the objects themselves are subject to property but information should not be. On-line through forums, wikis, youtube and in person through conversation, presentations, lectures, etc we distribute and exchange information freely without laws to govern the exchange. We don't have the right to control how others use the information we share, we never did. At least not until the 1960s and the birth of WIPO was information was connected to the idea of property.

There is another (better in my mind) reason to support levies or other solutions. Support them as an incentive to creators to create and share their work. That is what copyright should really about. Trying to control ideas being shared and used in the non-commercial domain is stupid to think that spending time and money trying to control what people do for next to nothing is somehow efficient. It has never been practical to try and control non-commercial use except for things like saying you can't copy books prior to the photocopier. Even with the invention of the photocopier the law gave way and said well ok you can copy sections of books for private (aka non-commercial) use.

Supporting the creators right to control non-commercial uses of their work doesn't make sense. Supporting incentives for creators to create makes sense.

Odemia