Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
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.
|
Not at all. Law does not create physical property. Property existed long before laws. Copyright is an entirely artificial creation.
Quote:
|
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.
|
There's no other way to read it, it is flat out a call for eternal copyright.
Quote:
|
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.
|
He may not have descendants, but he surely has relatives, if distant ones, and if copyright was eternal, they would be entitled to inherit. If you think that the public domain is "stealing", then you can't justify diminishing royalties over time.
If it wasn't for the public domain, Shakespeare might have been forgotten. One reason it is so widely performed is that no one has to pay to perform it.
Shakespeare has made an immense contribution to culture by being in the public domain. If it was under copyright, culture would be strangled.