Quote:
Originally Posted by BWinmill
You're missing the point of copyright: copyright introduces artificial scarcity in order to increase the value of books. That is why you can lend/borrow books, resell a book, etc.. In that respect, it isn't all that different from the computer that you write on. That computer is protected by a slew of patents, but you can still lend it out, sell it, aren't expected to pay for it each time you use it, etc..
Copyright is good in that respect because it tries to create a balance between the creator's and consumer's rights. Free "knowledge" is not good is not good in that respect because the focus is on the consumer. Pay-per-read is not good in that respect because the focus is on the creator.
Admittedly there are problems with copyright in the digital age because it is too easy to duplicate information, and we do need to tweak copyright because of that. Alas, the solutions that I have heard don't respect the rights of both parties so copyright remains the best option we have.
|
Is copyright good? I think the jury is still out on that one...
Putting any kind of time limits on copyright just doesn't make sense to me. A book could be written and languish in irrelevancy for decades, then suddenly be reconsidered and brought into the mainstream. Granting copyright to be equal to the life of the creator is one way around that I suppose. But then what of the creators family?
I'm aware that we lack the organization to create a copyright free network, so until we do might as well just go with the perpetual copyright. Of course we have to decide if we will allow full use of art for noncommerical purposes or not.