Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid.
If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.
I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system, and having all the legal answers about how to successfully encode such distinction into law. OP's comment was that that people shouldn't want there to be a legal difference.
You're also failing to understand that I am not even making a claim that there should be a difference, I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'.
When people ask 'why is x wrong' the answer isn't usually 'because it's against the law'. This is a boring statement and sheds no real light.
Just because there's currently no legal basis for something does not mean that the perspective that it shouldn't happen is invalid
Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid.
If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.
I fear you're failing to understand the distinction between having a perspective that something is wrong with the current system, and having all the legal answers about how to successfully encode such distinction into law. OP's comment was that that people shouldn't want there to be a legal difference.
You're also failing to understand that I am not even making a claim that there should be a difference, I'm merely pointing out that your dismissal of the artists that wish to prevent Tin-Tin from being gentrified is shallow and essentially amounts to 'that's the way things are'.
When people ask 'why is x wrong' the answer isn't usually 'because it's against the law'. This is a boring statement and sheds no real light.
5 replies →
But you haven't presented a first-principles argument for why that perspective is valid, other than saying that you can see a difference.
Actually, I didn't even state that I can see a difference
1 reply →
Some jurisdiction have the concept of “moral rights”.