Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
I think I'm missing your point; even in your own example there's a limited term of copyright, not forever. Doesn't that suggest that copyright is different than normal property law, was always recognized as such, and then that difference was codified? And in any event, laws have shifting purposes; tax law wasn't initially used to benefit stay-at-home moms either, but that doesn't stop that from being one of its (many) purposes.
I'm just not quite following how you can agree with Tubemonkey but also cite examples that show that copyright and property rights are different and have been recognized as such for hundreds of years. Where exactly is it that you believe that copyright law flows from (natural rights? God?) if not the common law and copyright legislation, and why do you think it should be given such special treatment?
|
Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here. I am not for eternal copyright like Tubemonkey. I am just saying that his position is very consistent, I see the inherent logic and that it is a very slippery slope to just legislate people's rights away. Of course, physical and intellectual property are not exactly the same. But why should society provide more protection for the physical kind? It seems unfair. Human beings are not ants, it is not human nature for the individual to sacrifice everything for the sake of the advancement of society (even though some special people do, of course). Human society exists for the betterment of the individual and for the protection of the individuals rights. In exchange the individual pays taxes and abides by the laws of society.That is how I see it.
But as a practical matter, I think life +50 is plenty, few works have any monetary value left after that, anyway. And there are many other problems with eternal copyright, as others have so often pointed out.
As far as my example goes, what wanted to point out is that the origins of copyright were centered on the author's rights. There was no contract with society or obligation to society involved. I am sure the reason for the time limit was not the public good. The only ones who benefited from expiration were the printers, the public had to pay either way to get a copy.