Quote:
Originally Posted by Hrafn
Speaking for myself, none of the above. Copyright (and ownership thereof) should be limited because copyright is a monopoly, [... snipped for brevity only ...]
|
A monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing, it depends on other factors. Economics is a science of balances, it has few basic facts. One of those balances has been creating copyright monopolies. And remember that the monopoly in this case is only over the particular work, nothing wider (which, as you acknowledge, makes it quite different from patents and trademarks). So there are hundreds of thousands of tiny monopolies spread around many businesses and individuals, and this changes the dynamics considerably.
I take particular issue with this: "Individuals generally don't decide on whether to create something based upon the chance of royalties decades hence". Read around, this is exactly what authors and publishers do. Each new book they create produces new interest in previously published works. Very few authors gain overnight success with their first book, most spend many years building their reputation and a back-list of books. (Many people have trouble with this because it is so foreign to our modern "must have profit this year" way of doing business, but this is the way it works.)