| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Black Fox,)
But isn't the problem here with the nature of the contract, and not the fact that the creative works can be commoditised? Would you object to the concept intellectual property if the creator of the IP was benefitting from her work?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist. The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing. The concept and practice of "intellectual property" were already corrupted before us internet pirates got there.
The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right? There's a difference. Morally, there's nothing we pirates can do that isn't already being done, and legally - well, they're legal exploitation, we're illegal. We give free publicity at the cost of potential sales, they give small royalties a the cost of potential compensation.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |