Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
There is no "natural state of creation." Public domain is a legal construct, and as such it's every bit as "artificial" as copyright.
Here's the opening statement of the Statute of Anne:
Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published, books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books....
The origin of copyright was not to provide for the public good, but to protect authors and their families from getting ripped off. It was imposed by the monarchy, not graciously provided by the people.
Unfortunately I can't respond fully to this, because that would veer way too much into P&R territory. That said....
People will pirate, period. Music has been available DRM-free, at reasonable prices, in open formats, by several vendors for years -- and it's only legal actions like shutting down Limewire that make small dents in piracy rates.
It's also screamingly obvious that most of the content that's pirated nowadays is far less than 28 years old. What do we see at the top of The Pirate Bay's charts? Adele, Bobby Ocean (a brand new release), Drake, Coldplay, Chris Brown, Linkin Park, LMFAO, the UK Top 40 for 17-06-2012. Almost nothing was published prior to 1984. All of it is available DRM-free at a reasonable price.
Is this what the protest against excessively long copyright terms looks like? Today's Top 40? What grand injustice are these people allegedly protesting, by downloading the entire Rihanna discography? |
The public domain is the natural state. Let me see if I can explain it more clearly.
I create/invent something. My neighbor wants to copy it. Why can't he? Unless there is a enforcable legal mechanism to prevent it, he can. There is no physical reason why he can't.
That is what I mean by natural state. No ownership of creative ideas. That doesn't mean they aren't created, just that they aren't owned. Once created, they are free to anyone.
Now, this is not the most productive way to create invention/ideas/writing. But it is a way. And things do get invented and written. The stirrup. The bridle bit. The heavy plow. The gun. The printing press. The spinning wheel. Steel. The touchstone. The chimney. The water wheel...
Written. Greek Plays. Mathematics. The works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Livy, Homer, Chaucer,
Beowulf, Shakespeare, Donne, et. al.
Copyright/Patent is better. It produces more ideas, by rewarding them. But people aren't born with a built-in copyright button. nor are Civilizations. Ancient Greece didn't have copyright law, nor did Rome (although Rome had a very highly developed legal system), nor to my knowledge, did the Islamic empires (pre 1600).
Copyright and Patent are tied to the rise of mass production. When (and where) there wasn't mass production there wasn't a copyright/patent system. And that's been most of the human existence.
One last comment. When a piece of property is abandoned, somebody else can claim it and put it to use. During the Dark Ages, the abandoned farms from the late Roman period were simply taked over and used again (the legal term from the times was
Assartage. But copyright/patent, even as it is used today, does not let creative works be recopyrighted (reused) once the term is over. Once released from the legal framework, it returns to the "natural state", i.e. free for anyone to use. Not owned is normal for I.P. over time. Owned is not. The term of abnormality may be 20 years or 200, but it is still abnormal to the long term availability of creative works.