Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Because patent law was founded with the goal that new processes and inventions should be made public to benefit society at large. You can't say the same about books - can you?
|
Yes I can. I can see no reason to favor one type of creative act over another, nor one kind of public domain over another. Certain powerful entities have made the distinction for selfish economic reasons, both to shorten patent (to gain access to creative ideas without having to pay for them) and enlongate copyright (to make common people continue to pay for a creative process, preferably in pertpetuity), but I see no moral or public benefit for these changes. Only to the powerful interests br-b-ing (excuse me, lobbying) governments for economic favors. Please explain why copyright deserves such special benefits. Is not the public better off for free access to Shakespeare, Balzac, Dumas, Mark Twain, et.al., as it is to free manufacturing access to penicillin, refrigeration, the light bulb, canned food, et. al. ???