As a writer, I am very conscious of copyright and the protections it offers to me (even if I am still an unsold writer). Without it, there would be no way to charge for my creative efforts (stories, poems, etc.) and thus no way to compensate me for my work. And without compensation, few people can afford to keep writing, keep singing, keep drawing in a way that reaches the public. Copyright is something societies offer to keep their creative types fed, and thus to foster creativity in general.
Recently, the Computer and Communications Industry Association posted a paper that claimed "fair use" is not a right. "Fair use" is a legal doctrine in the USA that states there are reasonable times to NOT strictly enforce copyright in the interest of the public good. For example, if you purchase a book it is "fair use" to lend it to a friend or to quote a section of that book in an online review. The CCIA is against "fair use" because it offers a potential safe harbor to copyright scofflaws who steal music or fileshare movies on the internet before they have premiered. The CCIA argues "fair use" is not a right and thus can be revoked in the interest of societal good.
The problem wth this reasoning is that "copyright" itself is simply a social construct. A right is something I have inherently, which can not be taken away without force and which my government exists to protect. Copyright on the other hand exists to foster creativity, and can be easily taken away without any changes to our Constitution or even our philosophies if it becomes detrimental to the public. Unlike "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press", Copyright could be revoked tomorrow without changing the American idea in any significant way.
Be careful, CCIA. By trying to change copyright and make it all-powerful, you could easily push legislators to a point where they questions its basic utility and consider abolishing it or critically weakening it.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder