Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
Correct. I read eschwartz's question to mean "How does copyright law suggest that the works should eventually go into the public domain?" (As opposed to, say, moving from copyright to some other form of economic protection, or just going from one limited copyright period to another, eternally.)
My answer is that it's implied in the "limited time."
ETA: Although, copyright law probably IS responsible for creating 'public domain' as a retronym. There was probably no need to have a term for it until then!
ApK
|
Actually, I got that much on my own.
But with all this odd discussion about "intent", I do not see how the "progression of art" inherently requires a public domain. I think the intent behind a PD is different from the intent behind copyright; obviously copyright has to take into account other concerns, hence the final law.
But as far as the original intent goes, in order to promulgate the spread of art, no PD is needed.
PD (the preservation of) is a carrot given to consumers; we call this "compromise".
All I'm saying is, copyright was NOT the result of someone saying "how can I make sure content creators can get money", but neither was it "how can I ensure the public domain grows". It was "how can I ensure people create more things".
And there is your (generic) "higher purpose".
People spend way too much time reading into it...