Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Moral? You know, for something that's only been around for 300 years, I find the moral concept of copyright real difficult to swallow. Practical, yes, but moral? I just wish the US Founding Father had been willing to lock 14 years with an extension, in the Constitution itself (they came close) instead of letting every big corporation buy extensions whenever they might have some "property"
(and it isn't property) get released into the public domain.
As to laws, there have been laws created in various places that have ranged from unmitigatingly evil to unbelievably stupid, and often conflicting. And I'm supposed to play Twister to try and follow them....
|
RSE:
This is exactly why I'm attempting to argue from self-interest rather than morality. It seems far more in keeping with the original text in the US Constitution. The moral argument is
there (IMHO), but lots of people may see things differently. My (and your, and our, and society's) interest in giving authors an incentive to write more, on the other hand, is strictly pragmatic. How to best accomplish that goal is an interesting question, of course.
As for being "property," well... A temporary monopoly is a depleting asset (in economic terms); it's not too different from an oil well or a mine when it comes to a balance sheet. I'm not intending to suggest that all (or most, or even ANY) author do (or should!) treat their copyright in that fashion for financial purposes. Just that the value matches up pretty well. See also 100-year leases on land (as often found in Hawaii and some parts of London), value of patents, and a fair number of other things.