Quote:
Originally Posted by meromana
The copyright law was intended to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder (author, publisher)
|
No, the copyright law was intended to encourage the recurring production of art, science and culture for the benefit of larger society by protecting the producer from competition (granting monopoly) for a limited time -- and ending that monopoly so that such work would enter the public domain and such a producer would be financially encouraged to produce more such works. It's a complicated, nuanced and well-balanced idea.
Large corporations, and the sociopaths that run them, have twisted the intent of copyright, turning it into a supposed (and functional) 'property right'. A dead man cannot be encouraged to create more work, no matter how long after his death you extend the copyright. But an immortal corporation can continue to profit from it eternally if it is seen as 'property'. It's a reductive idea that is easy to repeat, and appeals to those with a conservative, simplistic view of the world.
Immortal and powerful corporations can also propagandize in such a way that the average joe(sephine) thinks (s)he's doing the right thing when (s)he supports their interests over his/her own. Copyright is the only place in the law where monopoly is tolerated, thus attracting eternal corporate power and its corrupting effect.
Copyright is not a property right; the commons is robbed whenever it is treated as such. Those who don't believe in the commons in culture are of a kind with those who dump oil in the oceans, or sell tobacco: the benefits accrue to them and the costs are dispersed to the rest of us.