4 ms·

No, see, I don't accept the moral rights of authors as legitimate. See my original comment. Because I don't accept these rights, I don't think "compensating" s

• Chris_Newton 3y ago
  No, see, I don't accept the moral rights of authors as legitimate. What do you believe determines the legitimacy of any legal construct? Why should it be OK to say people can’t copy information without paying for it, but not OK to say someone can make their work freely available for anyone who wants to benefit with the one condition that anyone republishing it give credit where it’s due and not plagiarise? What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled? “Muzzled” seems like a very loaded term. Giving credit where it’s due is something I think many people would consider a basic act of fairness, and to me it doesn’t seem like much to ask in return for benefitting from someone else’s creative work. Likewise if someone is willing to share their work with others and all they’re asking in return is that others share their derived work on the same basis, that also doesn’t seem terribly unfair. The alternative in either case might be that the work is never created or shared at all.
  • juped 3y ago
    Misattribution or failure to attribute is a species of fraud, it has no relation to copyright.