On 07/12/09 19:34, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> How many movies or pieces of software do you know of that took over 20
>> years to produce a profit?
>
> I think there are lots of books that took more than 20 years to turn
> into movies. :-)

	That's different from "making a profit".

>> Yes, but that's a short term reason. The bigger and main reason is to
>> benefit society and further the discipline.
>
> No, that's the point you're missing. Assuming the movie, book, or
> computer program is of value at all, it would be impossible to produce
> in the first place without copyright. It's not "rewarding" the author
> any more than the commodities markets "reward" the farmers and miners.

	I think we're saying the same thing. The intent of having copyright in 
the legal system was so that society can benefit from those pieces of 
art. That the authors can be rewarded was a means, not a goal. If 
society had not deemed a form of art as useful, they wouldn't have had 
copyright, regardless of how many people want to make money out of it.

	I guess what I'm saying is that copyright wasn't intended as a way to 
affect/support the economy. Although one could make an argument that 
that aspect can be incorporated.

> Fully agreed. I'm not even sure a time limit as such is appropriate.
> Since the copyright is a financial incentive, it should be tied to
> financial goals, not clocks.

	Unless you're talking about free software...


-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message