Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
"Mein Kampf" is a perfect example for the value of eternal copyright in some cases. This rambling drivel should disappear from the face of the earth and we would be better off for it. But of course, in most cases life +50 or life +70 seems more than enough. Only a few choice works will be popular enough to still attract people who value them enough so that they want to spend money on them. If we had eternal copyright, then most works which are not commercially viable anymore would just be forgotten. Of course, I can understand Tubemonkey's position that it is wrong to just make a law to take away people's rights "for the good of society" after a certain period. So what is best? Perhaps requiring a payment to extend the copyright after a certain number of years. You don't pay, your copyright expires.
|
Those who enjoy reading that POS are rarely concerned about copyright. As it isn't illegal to own the book and to sell physical copies that were printed legally (still plenty of tose around) the whole thing doesn't amount to more than an annoying display of the nanny state.
Eternal copyright is a nonsense. Even no copyright at all would be preferable. Any new development would grind to a halt if copyright and patents were eternal.
The promotion of "intellectual property" as something akin to human rights is driven by rent-seeking corporations that want to get eternal revenue from the intellectual property they own. In the case of Disney this is quite ironic as there is no other company that has plundered the shared cultural heritage of mankind as shamelessly as Disney. Artists should be careful what they are asking for. As most art is derivative artists themselves could soon drown in compensation demands if copyright protection were too extensive.