2 ms·
I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm
by michael_dorfman 15y ago
I'm not stating that the premise (that the author of a work is entitled to be remunerated for the production) is a universal law of the universe. In fact, I'm not even stating that I agree with the premise. I'm just pointing out that it is an unstated assumption in much of the discussion surrounding IP.
In other words, the account given of the "ethical problems of intellectual property" above is dependent upon one rejecting that premise, and that contrarily, those that accept the premise will find the "ethical objections" to be unpersuasive.
If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books, then indeed no harm has been done. If, on the other hand, you accept the premise I elaborated (and which Tolkien explicitly appealed to, in a famous statement), the harm is evident.
- praptak 15y ago"If one is prepared to argue (as you apparently are), that Tolkien had no moral right to the proceeds of the sale of his books [...]" It is possible to believe that he had the moral right to the proceeds but only on the basis of the copyright policy that existed at the time he wrote the books. This doesn't mean you cannot at the same time argue that such policy should be abolished. In other words the Tolkien case is a red herring here.