Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Copyrights are like patents. They grow out of a recognition that creativity and innovation are necessary, and attempt to encourage that by providing the creators and innovators with an exclusive right to the proceeds of their work for a set duration. They explicitly recognize that ideas are property with a value.
|
If that was the case, copyright and patent laws are redundant - property law would work.
The fact that copyright and patent laws exist is because people recognize that ideas cannot be owned and are not property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Should you come up with an idea that might have value and turned into something that can make money, you might have a different attitude on the matter.
|
As a computer professional, I have done this many times. All my code is protected by copyright.
I have no problem recognizing that copyright and property right are different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
And the government granted right has a value, and is explicitly property.
|
"Value" is meaningless to this discussion. Property does not need to have value to be property. And anything of value is not property.
We are talking about the pipe dream of "owning" ideas in the same way that one owns their TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
Let's take this on a personal level: how does copyright extending beyond the author's death negatively affect you?
|
By keeping things locked up far too long.
I'd really like to read the other Tarzan books. But I can't find them in the bookstores (used or otherwise) and the copyright holders won't reprint them. Burroughs has been dead for, what, 50 years now.
I'll throw your question back at you:
How does having most of the Tarzan books locked up under copyright benefit an author that's been dead for 50 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
How would your life be improved if it wasn't the case?
|
I get to read what are, hopefully, interesting and entertaining books.