Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob
I would disagree with that. Copyright is designed to be a win-win.
1. The creators of the works get exclusive rights to their work for a certain amount of time so that they can benefit from the sale of copies of their work.
2. The public gets new works added to the public domain.
So, since authors get a benefit from their work, they are willing to create more. If there was no protection at all, less authors would create or publish works which means less would eventually make it to public domain.
So, copyright is designed to benefit both the individual creator and the public. As you say, this has been warped toward the side of the individuals to the detriment of the public.
BOb
|
Bob,
I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one. That being said, the language of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution is as follows:
Quote:
|
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
|
A straight reading of this clause indicates that the Progress of Science and the useful Arts is the purpose of copyright. The benefit to the authors and the inventors is simply the means. In practice I will grant that it is a win/win, but in purpose it is for the public's good not the author's.
However, I think we can both agree that regardless of whose interpretation is right, the fact of the matter is that it is crucial that the author of works benefit from their works to encourage them to continue to create and publish.
--
Bill