Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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".

Sure. But the movie would go on without anyone paying the author. I imagine 
there are many screen plays that took a long time to turn into movies, too.

I'd be happy with a copyright timer that starts when you sell the first copy 
or the rights thereto, tho. :-) That would take care of free software as well.

>> 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.

I'm just objecting to the term "reward". In my connotations, "reward" comes 
after you do something good, not as a prerequisite.  I don't get "rewarded" 
by interest payments on a loan I gave you - I wouldn't loan you the money in 
the first place if you weren't going to pay me interest. Similarly, I 
wouldn't start a software project that would cost me $1,000,000 to develop 
if copyright didn't assure I'd be able to charge more than one person.

You might be using "reward" in a looser sense, simply meaning "pay" or 
"reimburse" or "benefit" or something.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree. Copyright is there to 
encourage artists to produce. But it's not a "reward", but simply a 
guarantee of having enough money to buy the supplies to create the artwork 
in the first place. No bank will loan a producer money to create a movie if 
there's no copyright to protect the revenue needed to pay the bank back. 
It's not "good, here's some money to encourage you to do it again" reward.

Maybe we're in agreement already, tho.

>> 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...

I'm not sure that free software within the discussion of modified copyrights 
makes sense. If it's already free, why prevent copying?

See - same thing I'm saying above. Some people wouldn't write free software 
if they couldn't assure it was free. The ability to ensure it's free isn't a 
"reward" for writing it, but a prerequisite.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message