Quote:
Originally Posted by hardcastle
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 limitations. Physical property ownership being a monopolization of a place or object still has its obligations. 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 segment but very powerful 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.
|
Zero sum thinking, such as you are expressing, negates the idea of creation. "What you take I lose", and other redistributionist concepts make no sense in the context of copyright or patent. The many have no right to forcibly take the fruits of any individual's labor. The idea of copyright and patent is to provide a means for the creator to profit from the work of many who make copies of their creations, who, in turn also profit from the sale of the copies. All the parties involved need to be compensated for their efforts, for their to be a product that can be consumed, and there needs to be those willing to purchase, at a price that supports the costs of production. If the government or other collective force of society tries to force any of the elements of production to work without compensation that each element finds acceptable, the product suffers. Consumers then see fewer and lessor quality products. Not to mention the unfairness of attempting to force a production from those unwilling to work for the mandated compensation.
An author can sell the rights to what is unique to his manuscript, that doesn't give him, or those he sold his book to, the right to any similar book that another author may produce. Not the right to copy it or the right to prevent its publication.
Luck;
Ken