Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
I pretty much don't have a problem with this compromise. I suppose the copyright length could be argued back and forth... the suggestion of a more limited copyright length and a specific number of possible short-term extensions (until the end of a specified period is reached) is also a good one.
And it does place a big burden on sellers/buyers to make sure product is not illegally reproduced or distibuted. That will be a b***h to pull off, in this digital era, but no one said life was easy.
Otherwise, it makes perfect sense.
Clearly, the Founding Fathers recognized that, although copyright and patent are "contrary to nature," in terms of the existence of Men who must live in cooperation to survive and thrive, copyright was in the best interests of the public as it encouraged more and faster innovation than they would have without it.
Can anyone argue that copyright and patent systems do not produce more and faster creation and innovation... or that we would be better off without such increased creation and innovation?
|
Well, I can, taking real life example: China, which hasn't really cared about any kind of IP until it's been browbeaten into caring.
But most interestingly, there are people with far better credentials that do. It's a bit long, but this book/thesis argues against IP makes you look back upon very many things we usually just assume to be true:
Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
http://www.dklevine.com/general/inte...al/against.htm