Copyright laws, specially author’s right, have one good reason to exist : it legally tied up a work with a person or an entity.
This allows to create a responsibility about the work itself.
For the audience, it allows the audience to held responsible the author for the content of the work. Before copyright laws a work of art was the voice of gods and such…
Sure, but you don’t need copyright for that. You can just have a registry of works or many other solutions that don’t involve all the baggage and nonsense of copyright.
You need a law of some kind, that will make clear the relationship between the author and the work.
A simple registry is just there to retain informations, it doesn’t make magically people care about things… Laws are better for this.
Yeah, author’s rights are interesting as an argument. But still, I just don’t think they make much sense philosophically. Fraud is a clear case to me, everything just seems dubious.
Author’s right is also an historical thing.
It was made because before it no artists could claim anything at all regarding the work after it was created, no paternity, no money, no tell whatsoever.
The artists we know before 1800’s are just a few of the billions that have existed, in part for this reason.
Copyright laws, specially author’s right, have one good reason to exist : it legally tied up a work with a person or an entity. This allows to create a responsibility about the work itself. For the audience, it allows the audience to held responsible the author for the content of the work. Before copyright laws a work of art was the voice of gods and such…
Sure, but you don’t need copyright for that. You can just have a registry of works or many other solutions that don’t involve all the baggage and nonsense of copyright.
You need a law of some kind, that will make clear the relationship between the author and the work. A simple registry is just there to retain informations, it doesn’t make magically people care about things… Laws are better for this.
In what way would you be “making clear the relationship?” Like restrict usage?
Yes or granting usage. Being an author isn’t always about forbidding, it can be about changing the work or adapting it as well.
The author can defend the work against uses that would change the meaning of the work itself (integrity).
Lastly, the author can’t deny the work is his own. And for a bunch of artist this is a bummer.
All this is more of an author’s right thing, but I think it’s slowly coming to copyright laws as well (online publication).
Yeah, author’s rights are interesting as an argument. But still, I just don’t think they make much sense philosophically. Fraud is a clear case to me, everything just seems dubious.
Author’s right is also an historical thing. It was made because before it no artists could claim anything at all regarding the work after it was created, no paternity, no money, no tell whatsoever. The artists we know before 1800’s are just a few of the billions that have existed, in part for this reason.