The flipside of this is a concept of the rights of the user.
The consuming public might mistakenly think that the changed work is the product of the original creator. The changed item could do harm to the author by mocking him or damaging his reputation. To change it is to deteriorate the mark of that person, to disassociate the creator from his work. A work is the production of a human being, and a part of that human being is indelibly printed on it. However, there is another justification, and that is the moral right a creator has not to have his work tampered with. Hence, by preventing people just taking other people’s work, copyright promotes justice.īoth these justifications for copyright go to the issue of money. If person A writes book B, and person C takes the manuscript, publishes it and makes lots of money, we can get a sense that person A has been, as they say, stuffed and society thinks this is A Bad Thing. To allow someone else to profit from ones own work can be considered unjust. The downside is that every penny the work earns over the threshold at which the artist would have considered it worthwhile to create is, effectively, wasted money. The upside is that if people think they can make money out of a work, they will create it. The argument goes that we, as society, should incentivise people to create works therefore to allow them to have exclusive use and monetary monopoly over their work provides an adequate incentive. Let's take person A, who creates a theoretical Work B. However, we can reduce the argument for copyright to a few key points. Scholars have argued for years about why copyright should or shouldn't exist - indeed, many opponents substitute the phrase "Intellectual Monopoly" for "Intellectual Property". The first thing is to think about is why we have copyright law in the first place. Leaving aside the DCMA considerations, what are the factors that courts should be considering when deciding this issue in the future - as someone, somewhere, will inevitably have to? However, the Judge in the case did take something of an easy way out, because the suit raised an awkward issue: do users who buy games (note: buy, not steal) have the right to modify them as they wish? By simply dismissing the case, the Judge missed the opportunity to discuss this issue.
0 kommentar(er)
