On 07/12/09 16:22, somebody wrote:
> 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.
	
	Always a possibility, but let me put it this way: If that's not the 
reason, then I don't see a single good reason for having copyright.

>> 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.

	As you say, it all boils down to whether we consider copyright a 
natural right. As I said, the only reason I see for it is to promote the 
production of artwork, not to allow people to profit financially from 
it. The latter is merely an incentive.

	Your analogy is not good. The person physically owns the factory. He 
does not, however, prevent others from building factories to produce 
similar products, unless there is a patent violation. And patents 
expire. After patent expiry, I could build a factory that produces the 
exact same product, in exactly the same manner, as long as I don't 
pretend to be the same brand (copyright kicks in here).

	When it comes to something like a book, having copyright over the 
characters and story indefinitely is preventing others from producing 
anything similar.

	Copyright is thus granting even more powers to the author than the 
factory owner gets.

	Furthermore, if the factory owner shuts down his factory, and didn't 
have a patent (or it expired), he's not preventing others from making 
the product. Copyright, though, does just that.

	Your analogy fails in another subtle manner. If they take away the 
factory, he loses a source of funding. If an author loses copyright, he 
can _still_ continue to make a profit off of his own product. He can 
continue to sell his book. Granted, it's not likely people will buy it 
(especially with today's digital media) after copyright expiry, but if 
his books were still in stores at this period, he will continue to make 
money due to their sales. Taking away the factory is immediately cutting 
the owner off.

	There are many reasons physical ownership is considered a human right - 
I'll merely point out that this is almost never disagreed upon. The 
reason is not primarily related to making money, BTW.

	For the creator of a piece of art, copyright serves *only* for profit 
motives (from _his_ perspective). That's why few people really care that 
much about intellectual property as opposed to physical, and that's also 
probably why copyright is a recent phenomenon.

> 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

	That doesn't make sense. We're already getting mediocre works and 
sequels *with* copyright, and partially because of copyright.

	It's funny how in other contexts, you keep insisting on free markets. 
Do likewise here: Let copyright expire, and let the market make the best 
product derived from the previous product. Why get in the way? The 
entity that previously owned the copyright is not prevented from making 
money.


-- 
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