|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |