> That may have been why copyright was created, but over time, the justification has evolved, at least in Europe, into one based on the moral rights of the author.
It's interesting that you bring this up, as in many European countries, moral rights of the author are explicitly separate from copyright:
You can assign copyrights, but not moral rights. I believe that distinction stems from France, but I'm familiar with it from Norway, and variations of it is widespread throughout Europe.
For example, you typically have a legal right to have your name on a work, regardless of copyright. You also typically have a legal right to have your name removed from the work if alterations are made that affects the integrity of it, or that may be detrimental to the creators reputation (e.g. imagine someone deciding to alter key sentences in your political treatise to make it mean the opposite of your original), again irrespective of copyright.
So the protection of a creators moral rights does in Europe explicitly not require a wider interpretation of copyright.
It's interesting that you bring this up, as in many European countries, moral rights of the author are explicitly separate from copyright:
You can assign copyrights, but not moral rights. I believe that distinction stems from France, but I'm familiar with it from Norway, and variations of it is widespread throughout Europe.
For example, you typically have a legal right to have your name on a work, regardless of copyright. You also typically have a legal right to have your name removed from the work if alterations are made that affects the integrity of it, or that may be detrimental to the creators reputation (e.g. imagine someone deciding to alter key sentences in your political treatise to make it mean the opposite of your original), again irrespective of copyright.
So the protection of a creators moral rights does in Europe explicitly not require a wider interpretation of copyright.