Thanks to the dialogues between the first graders, I got a pretty clear understanding of the real effects of the features listed above.
Restrictions in use of a work (in reality, either via censorship, or via publishing monopolies, patents and other exclusive rights) shrink the market for it, put its author in a completely dependent position, limit the work's spread and twist its normal function in culture and society. It is particularly important to note that a work, which is restricted to be built upon, cannot be followed, thus is effectively excluded from further development of culture until restriction term expires. All these are equally applicable to the situation when an author and his publisher are the same entity.
Non-commercial use, if allowed, does provide some spread of the work. However, the degree to which it can do so, is naturally far smaller than that of commercial use.
Requirement of notification of use is just a light form of restriction of use.
Unrestricted use of a work provides the most possible exposure to it. In order to translate this exposure to its author's fame, it must be combined with mandatory attribution.
All listed above restrictions, or so-called rights can be sold, and this is the way to get money by the great majority of creators as of today. However, said sale bring considerable material incentives to a selected few. The selection least of all depends on talentness of the work.
Attribution, in my view, is the one and only one requirement that must be kept forever and supported by law, for it is a natural and unalienable right of an author. Attribution in no way prevents any use of a work. Public use without it, is an absolutely ugly practice. It is the only real stealing which may happen in the field of culture. It is neither normal, nor fair, regardless its legality and all other circumstances, including material incentives to the author.
- Войдите, чтобы оставлять комментарии