Copyright is Not [an] Inevitable, Divine, or Natural Right

-- Intellectual Freedom Blog

The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association (ALA)

Courts in India have ruled in favor of educators who use parts of other people's work to create packets--without compensation to the authors of the works used.  This is a new and historical turn of the laws.

     Copyright, specially in literary works, is...not an inevitable,  
     divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute 
     ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate 
     activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment 
     of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to 
     impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the 
     creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the 
     public.


Is this right or wrong?  Are written works meant "for the intellectual enrichment of the public" over the fair-rights use of the creator?  Should others be able to use your intellectual property without your permission or compensation?  How will this change the literary world?