 |
 |
 |
|
Re: Commons Assumptions
burningbird wrote: "I am also concerned about this growing push on the part of some that artists such as writers -- people like you and me, Doc -- have an obligation to put their works into the public domain after the 'commons' deems that they have made sufficient compensation from said works. This is no more true than to demand that other professions donate their salaries above and beyond living expenses to charity." Assuming for the sake of argument that this "growing push" exists and has the characteristics burningbird ascribes to it, I have the following observations: A professional's salary is his absolutely. An author's copyright is his only for reasons of public policy: to promote the progress of science. To equate the two is not necessarily logical. That is a side issue, though. The main issue is this: In theory the public, through its representatives, grants copyrights to authors by means of the law. But what happens if the law is corrupt ? if the law is no longer created for a public purpose, but to enrich the friends of politicians ? Then some exercises of one's legal rights, while formally legal, might carry the taint of corruption. It is not less reasonable for ethicists to ask authors to consider the political and social realities behind the rights that have been granted to them and, possibly, to modify their behavior accordingly, than for the same hypothetical ethicists to ask our hypothetical professionals to reflect on, and respond to, how their way of life influences the air, the water, or the balance of species. I agree with burningbird this far: to try to create an atmosphere of obligation on all authors to renounce all income from their copyrights after a certain amount has been received is unreasonable. It amounts to saying that authors who respond to the questions raised by the ethicists must respond in only one way. A reasonable respect for independence of conscience creates an expectation that responses to these concerns will be varied. And as a practical matter I think we would have better luck simply getting the statutory copyright term reduced than trying to create a social climate in which all authors acted as if the term were 20 years shorter.
|
