Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
Perhaps then, a scheme of copyright shouldn't be arbitrary or based on what sound like good arguments to an uninformed listener.
We've been at the copyright game for quite awhile and there is a big body of research on the economic harm that different lengths of copyright have. A copyright scheme could easily be built that uses that body of research to grant creators the minimal length of time required to encourage them to create (which is the purpose of copyright).
|
A. The purpose of copyright (or expiring them) isn't to minimize economic harm. So while you might be able to come up with a formula that minimizes that value, it is a solution that answers a different question.
B. Again, there
is no single answer. The encouragement for creating new works because of the existence of copyright is different for each person, so the benefit is a continuum without a single answer. So any copyright length, as a result, will be arbitrary.
Will a one year copyright encourage me to create? Maybe for me, but not for someone else.
Will a five year copyright encourage more people to create? Sure. Will it encourage me to create? If I'm writing a Harlequin romance, probably yes. If I am spending 10 years to write the next Encyclopedia Brittanica, probably not.
Until you set it out far enough that noone is discouraged from creating, then copyright hasn't completely filled its goal. And where that line is, is unknowable.
C. Just because the U.S. Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science..." doesn't mean that is the only reason for the existence of copyright. There are plenty of other drivers, both economic and private.
Quote:
Here's an easy example: Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech" is protected jealously by his estate. It's not hard to make the argument that society would be better off in small way if that speech could be disseminated by more people without having to pay a licensing fee.
|
I'm sure the same could be said about his speech the year after he made it.