Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
And how is it right that society choose to favor some rights and bestows them in perpetuity and others are just being "granted on a temporary basis" (how benevolent). Creators are being shortchanged --- their rights are only worth protecting because it is in the interest of society.
|
Most rights are only considered worth protecting due to their interest of many, many disparate individuals, not a nebulous blob we call "society". We can't look at this exclusively as "what benefits just one individual," because there is more than one individual in the world. All self-interest is created equal; the self-interest of the creator does not trump the consumer, and vice versa. The goal of debate such as these is to create a middle ground between each self-interest, or in some cases, side with self-interest supported by the most people (a simplified form of democracy).
Additionally, just because something is a "right" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions or rules to be followed. Physical property ownership being a monopolization of a place or object still has its obligations and limitations. Because the ownership of an idea is such an abstract concept and can have further ramifications, introducing further limitations can make the result more palatable to all parties. It's a trade off between the self-interests of many people. What you take I lose; how can we make this fair?
Is a time-based limitation the right way to go? Maybe not. But we can't really make a case when a very small but very powerful segment of the content creators effectively write the copyright laws themselves. This is not productive political parlay, that is a single self-interest wielding its power over a populace incapable of mounting any defense.