somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> licensing it? I would suggest that copyright should be perpetual, rather
> than an arbitrary number of years.

  That would not benefit the society as a whole.

  Historical pieces of art would be lost because it would be illegal for
anyone to copy them in order to preserve them. There are *tons* of art
out there who nodoby knows who owns currently the copyright (because the
author has died and it's unclear who is currently the owner; even the
legal owner himself may be completely unaware of the fact).

  Of course people who are dedicated to preserve historically important
pieces of art could copy them anyways, but they would then be breaking the
law. This might be something that respectable entities just can't afford
to do, even if there were no consequences.

  I have no way of knowing for sure, but I estimate that way less than 1%
of all existing art actually makes money for someone. Perpetual copyright
of *all* art just for the sake of that less-than-1% makes no sense. It's
detrimental.

  Also in the long run you end up in a situation where *everything* is
copyrighted, and nothing new can be done anymore before breaking the law.
Like technology (which is protected by time-limited patents), also art
cannot move forward if every single piece of it is protected forever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message