Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
What if some of those imitators wrote better Harry Potter novels than Rowling?
|
Irrelevant to the question at hand. Its like saying I am a better driver that X, so by rights I should have the right to use X's car. Rowling invented Harry Potter, the law has rewarded her by giving her exclusive rights to the character for some limited term (which currently, unfortunately is 70 years after she is dead.. but that is another thread). Take away that legal protection and Rowling might not have had the incentive to create the work in the first place.
Like any limitation on our freedoms there are pluses and minuses. Considering the vast proliferation of media and inventions beginning in the 19th century and continuing to the current day, I think it is hard to argue that copyright and patent law does not serve its basic purpose; the only question is whether the current laws represent a just balance of the public interests with the incentives provided by the license that copyright provides. I personally think they currently do not, but not because the current laws do not provide the public with benefits, but rather because current length of copyright does not provide the public a real benefit beyond that which a shorter period would provide. However, an overly short copyright period would deny the public of some of the benefits currently enjoyed.
--
Bill