Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
|
Both statements are correct, but so what? Without the law, there is no property, physical or otherwise. There is only possession by the strong. In this sense, the law creates physical property as surely as it creates intellectual property.
Quote:
|
I support copyright, but I can't support his eternal copyright, it would lead to stagnation.
|
Helprin specifically states in his
book that he is NOT arguing
for eternal copyright. He is arguing
against abolition of copyright.
Now, you can either read the article as a
condensation of the argument in his book - and therefore not in favor of eternal copyright - or as an
extension of the argument in his book - and therefore in favor of eternal copyright. But it really doesn't matter, because I have only been talking about the argument
as made in his book.
As for "supporting eternal copyright", it depends on what the copyright law says. I would have no problem at all with an eternal copyright law that said "if copyright applies, after 20 years, the owner may not forbid the use of the copyrighted work, but is entitled to one percent of any gross receipts in excess of $1000 from the use or sale of the copyrighted work or an immediate derivative." I would have a lot of problem with the further extension of copyright as it currently exists.
The only reason I think that the descendants of Shakespeare shouldn't get royalties is that there aren't any descendants of Shakespeare. How much they should get is open to discussion. Arguably, the royalty should diminish over time to practically nothing. In most instances, time & the division of interest should take care of that. And it would probably be a good idea to provide that after a term of years, copyright can only be owned by a real person, not a corporation or institution.