"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a48f1$1@news.povray.org...

>[...]
>
> The stated goal is to progress science and the arts. Not to provide
> some arbitrary rights to people.

That, may be, but there's always the very real possibility that a handful of
people who lived and died centuries ago may not have laid down the best and
only feasible set of thoughts and laws, however godlike we may think of
them.

> To get to my point, when the copyright period is too long, then the
> incentive to promote the arts is greatly reduced. If you have lifetime
> copyright, then the person who produced a piece of art has a lot less
> incentive to produce more pieces of art.

I don't buy that. It's like saying that if the government does not take away
factories of a wealthy businessman after so many years and force him to
start from scratch, he will have no more incentive to work or innovate. Yes,
some people will stop working when they reach a certain financial security,
and some won't, but that's something you have to let individuals decide. I
don't see "witholding" (yes, the term is loaded if you don't believe
copyright should be a natural right) such security from the creative sector
is a good means to encourage continued output.

The flipside of your argument is that time limited copyright encourages a
series of mediocre works or sequels (now that you mention Star Trek and the
like) instead of magnum opuses. For if the "milking" period regularly
expires, it makes more economic sense for the artist to do the former. I
don't have a problem with someone being set for life and beyond if they can
produce such an excellent work that people keep wanting it for years on end.

Post a reply to this message