Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
I couldn't agree more with this statement. Some people seem to forget that copyright isn't a natural right, it's a government created tool to encourage people to create; copyright is only useful to the extent that it fulfils its function.
|
Copyright itself is, as you say, a legal construct. But the law, at least in Anglo-Saxon countries, is (at least historically) largely organic, and the legal constructs are built around our desires and beliefs concerning what needs protection or control. And I think it is pretty evident that there is a clear moral case for protecting creator rights, and that a majority, although perhaps a diminishing majority, respects that moral case.
Quote:
|
I haven't voted in this thread's poll because unlimited copyright is as damaging as no copyright, the question itself is a false dichotomy and pretty much forecloses any useful discussion on the topic. Frankly, I think copyright should be considered in economic terms, of maximizing benefit, rather than the usual terms of theft versus freedom.
|
Not just economic freedom. Copyright has an impact on artistic freedom, and on the culture. We have to be careful of considering things in merely economic terms - doubly careful because, as with religion & certain political systems, the vocabulary of economics can be stretched to appear to explain everything in economic terms, when it really doesn't and as a result obscures or diminishes these other parts of reality.
What this poll does is force us to recognize that the two extremes are, indeed, extremes, and in our choice of which extreme I think we can discern what we value most about copyright.
I vote "no copyright" because we know from historical experience that we get creativity without it, and because perversely, "copyright forever" stifles the creativity arising from the interaction among those things that are created (i.e., the culture).
My own beef is that current copyright law has been hijacked by corporate interests and moved, for all practical purposes, to the "forever" side. This has been made possible by the emerging digital environment, and the onerous implimentation of DRM. At the same time, I am increasingly certain that the existing implimentation of copyright does not fit the digital environment in terms of achieving the ends that copyright is supposed to.
I can foresee a couple of things happening.
One is that our political representatives continue to "stay bought" by someone, whether the corporate content providers or the corporate content distributors. When the interests of the creators or the public are aligned with one or the other, or both of, the corporate interests, things will work out - as witness the SOPA rebuff. Otherwise, not.
On the other hand, I can imagine that we will figure out ways to sidestep the corporate interests. Piracy is one way, of course. But things like Spotify internet streaming are another. As more & more of these sidestepping processes come into existence, maybe we will be able to build a new copyright construct around them.
(I see that I am standing on a soapbox. I will now slip off...)