"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a6311$1@news.povray.org...
> On 07/12/09 16:26, somebody wrote:

> > I don't disregard your concerns, but similar objections could be raised
for
> > inheritance of private property. That one can inherit property or land
or
> > goods means we end up in a situation where *everything* is owned, but
that

> The analogy isn't valid (with respect to what Warp was saying). It's
> not a problem with land because there's still a lot of land out there.

My guess would be that there are many, many more ideas out there than there
is acres of land. Do you think we have exhausted the human creativity and
more than we have exhausted land? That's a very depressing view.

> Ditto for physical products: The raw resources needed to make them are
> available in plentiful supply.

See above. I don't like at all the implication you make, that we have less
original art to invent than raw materials to mine.

> Warp was talking about an extreme scenario where it would be very hard
> to come up with something new, because it'll almost certainly be similar
> to *something* from the past 2 thousand years, and all of it would be
> copyrighted.

Whether it's music, visual arts, literature or other copyrightable material,
exceedingly few people nowadays copy or create art that's from 200 years
ago, let alone 2000 years ago, even if there's no copyright barrier. Hence
what you present is a nonexistent problem. It's not hard to come up with new
things. Every self respecting artist strives to separate themselves from the
pack anyway. And for the blatant copycats, all I can say is that it wouldn't
be a big loss for humanity if there were fewer copies of Michelangelo's
David ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_in_Buffalo.jpg ). BTW,
perpetual copyright doesn't mean that there should never be copies, but if
State of New York wished to erect a David statue, in all likelihood, all
they would need would be to get permission and maybe pay royalties, that's
it.

> > doesn't stiffle economic growth. We can certainly flourish as a society
> > where Smoke on Water is copyrighted. Why would it then be any more

> You're saying it'll work out if it'll become illegal for me to combine
> H2 and O2 to get water without paying a licensing fee? Where burning
> wood for heat would be illegal unless I pay a licensing fee for the
> smoke that is produced?
>
> I think you're confusing ownership with copyright.

I think you are confusing patents with copyright. Or else you missed the
reference.

> > disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I

> What if the Marriage of Figaro were made not available for the next 500
> years?

What if Smoke on Water had not been available for the last 25 or so years?
It has always been Deep Purple's call to write the song and to release it?
What if they never wrote it? What if they wrote it and then threw it in the
trash bin?

What if the opera Marriage of Martinelli was never written (hint, it never
was, AFAIK). Are we as humanity poorer for it? Well, maybe, but it's absurd
to mourn that was not. I am sure there are countless excellent art that was
never created, as are many artworks that have been created but not released,
or lost at some point. That goes on with or without copyright. And if a
copyright holder choses to not avail his art at all, that's his call. But,
like above, that's a nonexistent problem in practice. People like income and
royalties. And if not, they like fame and recognition. And if not, they like
to share art for the sake of it. There are exceedingly few examples in
history where owners or creators of art completely refuse to share it. What
would the point of burying art for 500 years be?

> > It would, if anything, encourage more original or contemporary works. On
a
> > practical matter, licence fees for older works would naturally decline
in
> > time anyway, and many would voluntarily be donated to public domain. As
for

> By individuals, possibly. We're seeing copyright owned by corporations.
> Unlike humans, they have no incentive to donate to the public domain,
> and are quite happy on holding on to the copyright indefinitely. I
> already gave examples in another post.

Which is fine. For corporations, art that doesn't bring income is dead, so
they will not hoard and not release it. Do you see a music label buying
songs from artists and not releasing any of it for 500 years? If it doesn't
make business sense, it's not a realistic scenario to worry about.

Post a reply to this message