Bob Schroeck Wrote:Let me note that I haven't abandoned this thread, but am thinking over the points made and why I feel the way I do. If/when I come to some resolution, then I will post a proper reply.
In the mean time, let me point out that copyright was invented not so much to ensure a creator's work stayed his own for decades and decades, but rather to encourage creators (with a period in which they were allowed sole privilege to profit from them) to make works that would after a while enter the public domain for the enrichment of the culture as a whole. Let me repeat that -- copyright was intended to encourage the expansion of the public domain, by a similar mechanism to patents -- an exclusive right to reproduce (and profit) from a work for a long, but not too long, period.
This is still true under copyright law right now. Your argument (and indeed anyone else's that does not advocate the complete eradication of copyright law) hinges on what constitutes ideal values for "encourage" and "long, but not too long".
Because it is a pure economics question, there is no possibility whatsoever at arriving at a definitive answer. Economics is not a hard science (some would argue it's not a science at all, though I wouldn't go that far). You can make a best guess based on data, but nobody here is educated enough in the issue to do that. Therefore your decision is purely a moral one. My morality is to give most benefit of the doubt to those who create content; others, to those who consume it. Others are more in the middle (which does not give their view any particular virtue).
Quote:The modern slow mutation of copyright into an eternal protection and an eternal profit stream is a perversion of the original concept of copyright, fostered by corporations that are essentially immortal and far greedier than any individual could be. When Jefferson shaped the first American copyright law, he never imagined that anyone but the individual creator could possibly own the rights to a work. He would have loathed the idea that a company could own a work -- and would want to keep complete control over it in perpetuity. The idea behind copyright was to encourage creators to enrich the culture, not enrich corporate coffers.Well, first off, I sincerely doubt you have any especial psychic insight into what Jefferson would think of modern copyright law.
Second off, I really couldn't care less what a guy that's been dead for nearly two centuries would think of any sort of modern law, even were I American or living in the United States, neither of which are true. I don't feel the need to consult the ghost of Hammurabi on justice, either.