| |||||||||||||
The Authors' Guild and Google PrintThe Authors' Guild and Google PrintPosted Sep 29, 2005 15:42 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111)Parent article: The Authors' Guild and Google Print
Lots of good arguments in favor of Google Print, unfortunately marred by one extremely bad one: The Author's Guild has only 8,000 members. I say "only" because Groklaw has more members than that. The value to the public of Google's Print Library collection so far outweighs the value of one book to one author or even 8,000 books to 8,000 authors, that it is hard to comprehend how any law could be permitted that could allow such a result as shutting down Google on the demand of those 8,000 authors. So it's okay to hurt a bunch of people, so long as more people benefit? If that's a legitimate argument, then Google should be publishing the whole book, because everybody benefits from *that*, too, except for those measly 8000 authors.
(Log in to post comments)
The Authors' Guild and Google Print Posted Sep 29, 2005 16:07 UTC (Thu) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] So it's okay to hurt a bunch of people, so long as more people benefit?No, it's not OK, thus the fallacy behind democracy. Among others, Rothbard makes this point very well here:http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp On the other hand, who is hurting whom? Considering that copyright itself is an unnatural (watch how a child reacts when your first explain this strange concept to them) imposition on the masses for their supposed benefit, copyright holders or authors can easily be seen as the ones hurting the freedoms of the rest of society for their benefit. I will assume you have read RMSs writings on this, if not simply peruse the FSF site.
The Authors' Guild and Google Print Posted Sep 29, 2005 16:10 UTC (Thu) by dlapine (guest, #7358) [Link] That arguement is tenuous, but so is yours- how are the minority hurt without unauthorized distribution of their works?
As the ariticle states, copyright was authorized in the constitution as a way of "promoting the public good". Unless you can point to specific harm suffered by the authors when their works are not distributed, I think that the public good trumps the demands of those authors in this case.
The Authors' Guild and Google Print Posted Sep 29, 2005 20:39 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] If that's a legitimate argument, then Google should be publishing the whole book, because everybody benefits from *that*, too, except for those measly 8000 authors. Not to detract from the argument about good-of-the-majority reasoning, but when considering what copyright is for, we should always remember that the authors are not the primary beneficiaries of it, and therefore not the main ones who would be hurt in this hypothetical. While some people believe there is a moral right to profit from one's own creativity, that's not why copyright was invented and not why many people continue to support it. The ultimate beneficiaries of copyright law are we readers. Copyright is one way we get authors to write for us. The system also has the effect of appointing the authors to defend the system and keep material flowing to readers by filing lawsuits like this. The authors, while technically guarding their own selfish interests, tend to consequently further readers' interests as well.
|
|||||||||||||