Quote:
Originally Posted by capidamonte
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.
|
Our statements are not in conflict. Copyright would not encourage the production of art if it did not protect the financial interest of the artist. (Talking about works that have not passed into the public domain yet.)
The idea that art inherently belongs to the masses is about as socialistic as it gets. I'm just not seeing this entitlement thing. Why is the public entitled to read books or view art or hear music without the artist's or owner's agreement? No one expects my former employers to turn over statistical programs I wrote for them years ago, just because they're not using them anymore. They paid for that stuff; they own it. Why is art so inherently different?
I'm open...maybe someone can come up with an analogy that will make me see it another way.
--Maria