[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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.

Of course it doesn't, just as the "progression of science" doesn't require that patents fall into the PD. Science marches on regardless, and in spite of, patents falling into the PD, in fact.

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".

Yes...so all those consumers can go out, download books from PG, and then put them up, as-is, on Amazon, to sell. For money. Filthy Lucre. What was it--over 2,500 copies of Pride and Prejudice, as the all-time record? Oh, wait, that's not the intent of the PD, right? Gosh, I almost forgot. Surely, THAT is the intent of the PD.

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".

Yes. And the obvious answer was: people, like all creatures, are motivated by self-interest. If not for themselves, for their gene pool. Maybe there are great artists, of whatever kind, out there, that are driven to create just for the sake of it, and would sculpt/carve/write/paint/whatever, no matter what, but somehow, the promise of gelt seems to motivate them. And if no further proof is needed, simply look to Amazon. You think those MILLIONS of self-pubbed books are up there just to say "I dun it. I wrote me a book?" No. they're there to SELL. (Just as were all the PD books that were, uh...borrowed...from the PD, for the purposes of making dough.) Thus also the ever-burgeoning market in porn. Lotsa consumers, it seems..and now, many purveyors as well. A purer example of the market meeting the need doesn't exist.

And there is your (generic) "higher purpose".
People spend way too much time reading into it...

It is ever so when someone is trying to Gumby an argument to fit a preconceived idea.

ETA: Posted by @carpetmojo:

3) However, I am against the enforced DRM operated by publishers like Amazon etc.... which is purely designed to make readers have to buy their make of reading device, and is simply a means of getting two lots of cash.

You think that this is about devices, rather than human honesty? Having been on the receiving end of "human honesty," I don't blame ANY publisher, big, little or in-between, for using DRM. And trust me: it's more about the publishers than the purveyors. As you've obviously forgotten, you can CHOOSE to publish without DRM. Amazon allows this, as does Smashwords (doesn't even have the option to add it). So when you say, "by publishers like Amazon," you're factually simply wrong. It's publishers like John Doe and Random House, all of whom know damned well that the Half Pocket Experiment I posited, above, would yield an individual with empty pockets at the end of their walk.

Hitch