|
|
|
|
|
|
by clankyclanker
916 days ago
|
|
|
I don’t think that’s quite the takedown of the gp you might it is; copyright doesn’t really ensure any of those things. It looks like think you’re conflating a few things here, particularly attribution and profit. I don’t think copyright guarantees either. The gp was speaking about the purpose behind creating copyright, which is to produce the maximum number of works, while you were looking at the results to the author, the goals of recognition and payment. Only specific representations are protected: non-derivative readaptations are generally permitted (the thorny issue is whether it is derivative or not: c.f. Disney vs Pixar). Additionally, the US specifically avoids guaranteeing profits for works by endorsing “sweat-of-the-brow” or effort-based value judgements. Doing otherwise is an implicit validation of communism: to each according to their effort, which is counter to the distribution policy under capitalism. |
|
|
Indeed, it does not guarantee profit or earning a living (indeed, there are many works with great labor that earn a loss). But it does give OP a grounds to pursue remedies to recover and prevent further infringement were I to copy his/her stuff, and out-sell it under my label.
The mention of "years of work" was not to imply that profit is somehow to be communist-style equating of profit-to-effort. It was to contrast a massive effort often required to create a serious work of literature, art, or software, vs. the trivial effort required to pump out new copies and slap your name on it.
Any sense of ethics would find it unfair for Alan to put in years of work to create a truly unique and valuable work, and Bob to claim it as his and make all the profits. And that is the moral case for copyright.
I also notice that OP said he's against Capitalism, but did not say he was OK with Bob taking Alan's work and profits as his own.
That said, the implementation, constraints (fair use), and terms are vastly arguable.