Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Does that mean I need to register my clothing, too? How about my pencils? 
There is a lot of property that does not require registration in order to receive legal protection, including goods whose theft would be felonious.
Actually I'd say it is a social construct, much in the same way as any other political rights bestowed upon, demanded by, or accepted by a nation.
However, more to your point: The current structure of copyright already pushes many of the costs onto the copyright holder.
The police do not proactively search for copyright violations, that's up to the copyright holder. If an infringement is found, a federal prosecutor isn't going to step in and take over the case; it's going to be a civil proceeding, where the allegedly aggrieved party has to pay legal fees.
Your idea of copyright as a lottery is patently absurd, by the way. |
Patently absurd? Nonsense. Let me spell it out one logical link at a time...
I'll use photographs, since these seem to be causing the most questions.
My brother is an internation salon exhibitor, and has listened to a number of lectures by National Geographic photographers. They have all said the same basic thing.
For every picture used by National Geographic, they take (on average) around 1000 pictures. Now these are long time pros, they know what they're doing behind the camera. The rest aren't duds, bad photographs, just not quite the magical one being chosen. They might sell another image to another source, on average and that's it for that batch of pictures. So the photographer, has 998 images, which are not commercially viable. Does he/she need copyright protection on those images?
Actually, no. They're under the absolute control of their creator, and nobody has access to them to copy unless the creator lets them. Nobody will copy them, because nobody can - they don't have access! Only if the picture(s) are distributed is there any need for copyright protection.
And why would the photographer release a photograph? Because he's getting paid to do it! It becomes an economic property, with a price tag attached.
That's the whole basis for copyright, economic monopoly. It's an economic deal.
And that's the point being raised about a 20 year renewal. Things that will bring in money will have pretty much been defined by then. You want to keep on making money off of the "property"? You pay a tax to keep it. If it's not worth the tax to keep it, you let it go.
And that's where the lottery ticket comes in. You want to profit as close to forever you can get away with on a copyright creation, at absolutely no cost. There is no other economic activity like that in humanity. You want a free "lottery ticket" that maybe someday something you created will be worth something. If it doesn't, it cost you nothing. If it does, whee, you make money. I say that's wrong. You want to buy a "lottery ticket", pay for it. Every other creator does. You're not special. Patents pay. Trademarks pay. So should copyright.