[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone else think it is unethical (as well as illegal) to digitize works that are protected by copyright? Don't the writers and producers of intellectual and artistic property own their works and have the right to control how they are distributed
To get technical, the complainants are book publishers who purchased
First book rights or something similar. They have been compensated.
Electronic distribution is a right they haven't purchased or have an
interest in. As I point out later, this argument isn't about
compensating authors.
. . .
Do we have on this list any authors in the group who depend for their livings
(or a part thereof) on the royalties they receive from books, music, film,
etc.? And will they continue to publish such works if they can't receive a fair
recompense for them?
In this day and age, copyright isn't used to benefit the creators of
intellectual property. It is used to benefit the copyright owner, i.e.
Harcourt Brace specifically or more generally the media conglomerates
who have bought the copyrights wholesale. The media conglomerates
haven't been satisfied with historical protections and have successfully
lobbied to extend the length of copyright protection long after the
death of the author. In addition, they bully users by using the threat
of legal action to extend copyright beyond what is intended. Further,
recognizing changes in technology, the media conglomerates are requiring
authors to relinquish more rights (the favoured term is "all rights") in
exchange for publication.
In Canada, the media lobbies successfully portrayed all purchasers of
recordable media as thieves who madly copy everything they can lay their
hands on. Consequently, Canadians pay a royalty with every recordable
media purchase. This being the case one would suspect copying music
etc. would be legal -- the royalties are paid. However, Canadians are
still being accused of pirating.
It's off topic but one of my pet peeves is "own the video". False and
misleading advertising every time you see it. You license the video.
What will be the long-term impact on intellectual and artistic production if everything is in the public domain as soon as it is published?
I expect most creators of intellectual property never see any
royalties. For example, one condition of recieving a Masters degree was
granting the National Library of Canada a non exclusive license to copy
my thesis. The National Library of Canada assigned the license to 3M.
Personnel y, I really don't see how this can be legal, but my legal team
can't compete with the Government of Canada and 3M. In short, copyright
may benefit someone -- it isn't the creator.
Sarah Blackmun
Former Senior Vice President
Harcourt Brace Publishing Group
--
Larry Phillips
FutureCraft
http://www.clubwebcanada.ca/l-pphillips/
Quantum 2000: Education for Today and Tomorrow
http://www.clubwebcanada.ca/l-pphillips/quantum
Finding a Way
http://findingaway.blogspot.com/
Alberta Consumers' Association
http://albertaconsumers.org
Conversations about education
Ed Conversation mailing list
http://www.topica.com/lists/edconversation/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
