Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
You are right about the goal IMO. It is to encourage creators to create by giving them a certain time to profit from their work.
The other goal is to make these works more available in time by removing the copyright.
Some people want the rights to distribute these works before this time, whether from altruism or for profit. I don't think they are entitled to that right without time and effort and possibly spending money to attain their goal. Just my opinion.
I don't think copyright is perfect, but I don't think it is the main cause of books or music etc. not being available.
In fact I think that most works are available that have not been physically obliterated. The fact that you may have to hunt them down and/or pay a hefty price for them does not make them unavailable, nor does the fact that you may have to travel to a museum or another country to see them make them unavailable. You or I may not want to pay the asking price or be unable to, but this only makes them unobtainable by us.
Removing copyright would not stop everyone from writing, but is it right that they get no rewards from their work? And what is the magic number that would make everyone happy?
Helen
|
I do not advocate scrapping copyright, just excessive length for copyright. Until 1976, it used to be 56 years, max. Nobody had a problem with works being created, But when Hollyweird start to realize that their sound movies were going to start going into the public domain, bingo, copyright extension. And, extension, and extension...And the MPAA makes no bones about that they feel the proper length of copyright should be forever - 1 year (so it would fit the "limited" length prescribed in the US Constitution.
At 56 years, the public domain would start at 1956, currently...(And all those works were created under the 56 year regime, the creators knew that when they did the creation...)