Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NinjaLawyer
There's a double-negative (and maybe a misplaced comma?) in your second sentence that makes the whole thing difficult to parse, and the last sentence seems to be repeating what you said earlier, in the same mess-of-a-sentence way. I'm really trying here petrucci, and I want to argue with you, but I just don't think I'm getting what you're trying to say.
|
The second sentence was a mess. It should read as follows: I do not believe that the reduction in the length of copyright so that you can create works derived from other works will help the economic situation of the author.
Yes, the second paragraph essentially repeats the point. Long copyright terms are important because many important works are not recognized as such for long periods of time. Further, such works do not necessarily command high prices. If the duration of copyright were shortened, then there would not be as much opportunity to profit from the enterprise of creating a work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NinjaLawyer
Maybe this would be easier - What do you think would be a reasonable copyright period?
|
As I stated above, I believe that works that have value should be copyright. I also believe that a reasonable period extends, at the very minimum, until the artist dies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
If we can't have capitalism without eternal copyright, or at least copyright terms that are longer today, and copyrights were significantly shorter in the past, it logically follows that capitalism has never existed. When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, copyright was only 14 years, with an option to extend an additional 14 years.
|
As I noted in my previous post, one aspect of copying items is the ease with which it can be accomplished. In the past, copying an item involved much more labor and resources than copying an item does today. Thus in the past copying items did not undermine capitalism nearly as much as it does today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
False. It's extremely rare for a book to only have it's value recognized after many years. Has there EVER been a book that only had it's value recognized 70 years after the death of the author?
|
There are plenty of instances in which works have taken many years to be recognized. The works of Thoreau come to mind. Dickinson's poetry also took time to be recognized. Granted neither of these took 70 years after the death of the author. However, my argument is based on the value of a work. Once it is recognized as valuable, it should be copyright. If it is not, then it will undermine the sale of future works.