Quote:
Originally Posted by GA Russell
Ralph, I think that most people in the civilized world think that it is just that an author be paid for his work when there are consumers willing to pay for it. Where justice is involved, that is an instance of morality.
|
It a contract moral? Because that, in essence, is what we're talking about. Society has made a contract with creators to provide a economic benefit to the creators, for a
limited period of time, to encourage more creation.
At the time of marketing every creation, there is a set of terms and conditions made,
accepted by both parties, made by the act of publishing (in the broad sense). Nobody forces a creator to either create or release his works. Remember how long some of Mark Twain's Autobiography has been held.
If there is a morality to contract, it is that
both parties adhere to the terms of the contract. And every copyright extension granted dances and spits on that morality (if it exists). That doesn't mean that copyright for new works can't be extended, but it shouldn't apply retroactively to existing works. That is abrogating the original contract, stealing from the public that granted it in the first place. So, if one party is stealing, how do they have the moral high ground to complain about the other party stealing?
Until 1978, all works covered by copyright had a maximum copyright length of 56 years. So anything released before 1954 should have been in the public domain. That includes movies, music, writing, photographs, ect.
So where's my PD copy of
Casablanca? Or Tex Ritter's
Pistol Packin' Mama? Or the Heinlein's
The Rolling Stones?
Stolen, each one, by powerful corporations, by bribing politicians to ignore the public's rights and hand them back to the corporations...