Society is compensated through this system of exclusive ownership. They pay for the parts, add value, and then sell the completed product. It is crystal clear what the individual owes and to whom, so we can easily say how society was compensated for their work. Don't be silly and assume that I meant all of society was compensated.
Come again?
That's correct, and I agree. The IP owner has a claim that is greater than any other specific individual's, but not the only claim.
I disagree with this, though. If the creator had to overwhelm the value added by the rest of society, in the future it would be impossible for one to lay a claim of protectable IP since the intellectual foundations are increasing at an exponentional rate. But I don't even think the author needs to add something significantly valuable to lay his claim on his specific work.
Wow, say that again? You said that the whole of society gave no more benefits to an individual than an individual gave to the whole of society. An individual with a contribution equal to that of an entire society is a worthy individual indeed, but Tolkien was certainly not such a superman.
Does this argument apply to the topic at hand? Do you mean to say that a derivative work not expressly sanctioned by the creator removes enough of the benefits of the work that he is unfairly stuck with the costs of creation? This is the kind of explanation I'm looking for, thank you =).
You (and Burr, possibly) misunderstand my scope. I merely wish to know why Matt believes this is morally wrong as applied to the reasons why IP law exists, not have a discussion about the fundamentals of IP law. I say this because he said other laws he had no compelling reason to follow, and he has stated numerous times that Traithe's actions were immoral. I want to know why it is immoral, and saying "Because it's the law" just doesn't cut it given his previous statements.
Now Matt and Burr have given similar answers to my questions. Basically, they've said that it is unfair to create something only to have the benefits of IP control disappear. It causes "harm" (I would rather say that it causes a lack of benefit rather than harm, but we'll leave that debate to another day =)).
But what if it didn't cause any harm? What if Shadows of Isildur became popular, and the top players all went out and bought the novels and movies to complement their interest? We have this concept of complementary items in economics: If the demand of jelly goes up, for example, there might be a corresponding increase in demand for peanut butter so that people can make scrumptious sandwiches. How can you honestly say that the harm is always greater than the benefit?
That statement is underlined because it's important to my primary point. If the copyright holder were to expressly deny SoL, we can only assume that he has weighed the various circumstances and made a decision. I'm not arguing that this decision should be disregarded when it is made. Even if it were proven that SoL had a net benefit rather than a net harm to Tolkien's IP, I believe that the owner has the right to dig their own grave so to speak. But if they do not make an express decision, this is all still up in the air. Tolkien's IP may become more valuable because of this, not less, and so the moral imperative to stop infringement is simply not there because everybody is seemingly winning. It would be presumptuous of all of us to say that this specific case wrought a net benefit or harm. Therefore, I will err on the side of Traithe: Although it is presumptuous (and based completely on my anecdotal experience), I believe his work benefits Tolkien's IP more than it harms it. Ergo he is morally right in my eyes.
|