Quote:
Originally Posted by arjaybe
You're not alone. There's a lot of missing the point going on here. For instance, I'm missing the point of how accusing people of being thieving cheapskates relates to their preference for copyright reform. I'm missing the point of how something being under copyright 125 years later affects an author's income now. I'm missing the point of how a preference for a shorter copyright term makes a person an evil author-hater. Mostly I'm missing the point of how intelligent people, as I assume we all are, can get caught up in this cycle of deliberately mis-construing what each other is saying for rhetorical purposes. Look: it's happening again.-)
rjb
|
Here is the big picture, arjaybe. You have three parties, which are fighting over the moral high ground. The one that proves to the others that they have the moral high ground can then dictate terms to the other two. Simple, no? Let me list the three. (Actuallty, there is a fourth, the "data wants to be free" type, but they are not part of this debate.)
Party #1 - The Creators.
The Creators standpoint is simple. I made it, I own it. I control it. Now and forever. I worked hard and took risks to create the material, I deserve to be compensated for my efforts, now and forever, because <I own it!>. Even though I sell copies to the public, I still own my creation.
Party #2 - The Public.
The public standpoint is also very simple. Creator, you own your creation until you release it to the public. That effective constitutes a <sale>, ending your further rights to your creation, the same as if you sold any piece of real property.
However, because the Public feels that this acts as a hinderance to getting a Creator to create, the Public decided to grant a time limited <monopoly> to the Creator, to act as an encouragement. At the end of the term, the creation reverts to the Public. This viewpoint has been codified in Law since copyright has existed in the Western Civilization.
Party #3 - The Opportunist
These as usually (but not always) middlemen who have (and will continue to) profit off of the existing limited monopolies They do no care about the Creator, other than they create the creation that the Opportunist can exploit. The Opportunist is not usually encouraged to create new works (although sometimes they do), but wants to be able to exploit the creations they have control over - forever.
That's the three-cornered debate that's going on here. Obviously, I support party #2, the public. Helen is mostly supporting Party #1, the creator. Hitch is a mix of Party #1 and Party #3. All of us seek the moral high ground.
Where you stand on what copyright length should be depend on what camp you belong to. Parties #1 and #3 want it as long as possible. Part #2 wants it to be only long enough to act as an adequate encouragement for creation, and no longer. Parties #2 vastly outnumber Parties #1 and #3, but Parties #1 and #3 have much more money (especially Party #3) to get their view implemented.
From my perspective, 56 years has proven to be adequate for the purpose, as shown from 1909 to 1976. I could live with something a little longer. But anything less than forever is unacceptable to Parties #1 and #3.