Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
I would frame it differently. It is not so much that we are ignoring the laws, as it is that we are taking back what we had in the first place, and which has been stolen from us through the very laws that are suppose to protect us...
The first thing to notice is that the purpose of this clause is NOT to protect anyone's "intellectual property rights." The purpose of the clause is to increase the amount of intellectual property in existence, because that property belongs to everyone...
The second thing to notice is that the rights that are to be granted are supposed to be for a limited period...
And that understanding is that the rights to IS were owned by the community at large, just like our language is. Nobody owns language. New words and usages are invented all the time, and they belong to everyone. It's the same with ideas and stories, or at least, it was.
So "copyright laws" represent the mechanics, in the form of a contract between society and writers, that says to the writer: "you have a monopoly right to the economic benefits you can get out of any IS you come up with, for a limited period, after which the IS belongs to all of us."
But what has actually happened? The duration of copyright has been extended to the point that if I write a book today, NOBODY ALIVE NOW will ever have any rights involving that book. Whatever "limited times" means, it surely does not mean "until everyone alive today is dead."
In effect, the rights of the society in which the IS is created have been legislated out of existence...
|
Well said, Harmon. Just so.