15 Feb
2013
15 Feb
'13
10:04 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Louigi Verona <louigi.verona(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
If we are in a position when such "courtesy"
means saying "Can I please
use your tune in my play?", we are philosophically saying that the author
has the right to decide how you should employ your body and your property
in a certain way.
In a discussion of copyright, wherein the right of refusal
is enforceable by rule of law, you'd have a point. However, as a matter
only of ethics you do not lose any ability to do whatever you wish if I
refuse to grant you permission for something. You can choose to ignore my
wish if you so please.
To me, however, this all raises a question I've been meaning to ask
throughout this discussion. Why do you need to use my work in the first
place? Why can't you just whistle some other tune? Why can't you just use
some other song in your play? I would imagine the answer is because you
want to. Because something about that particular tune inspires you, or that
particular song makes you feel as though your play is better. I'm not
forcing you to have that desire. And I'm not forcing you to follow that
desire, but you will feel compelled to do so regardless. Copyright or no
copyright, you will not be free from this impulse. Your liberty to decide
how you should employ your body is constantly compromised by your own
desires, as it is for each and every one of us. I see plenty of arguments
for abolishing copyright on the grounds that it restricts fulfillment of
desires - why not abolish desire on the grounds that it restricts true
freedom of choice. The two seem about as plausible as each other to me
right now.