Quote:
Originally Posted by itisbomb
From economic view point, copyright is a necessary evil. It is evil because copyright is nothing more than a scheme to create monopoly (albeit a legal one). It is necessary because without it a would-be creator of copyrighted work would have no incentive to create the said work. Economists always feel uncomfortable towards copyright, but are not yet bright enough to come up with a workable alternative.
|
Oh yes, alternatives have been employed but probably unknown to the (uninterested) public
.
For instance, in the
Red Zone, the patents have been issued, the inventor received a gratification plus either a lump sum (only if the invention was put into practice) or some monthly bonus based on the "calculated benefits", for a certain period of time. the invention thus belonged to "the people".
Theoretically a better system, as the current one, in particular because the "normal" one is abused a lot, and because an invention should serve the community, as in the tribal age of the mankind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertDDL
There is, for instance, no "copyright" where I live (Austria), nor in Germany. We have "Urheberrecht" instead ("authors' rights"), but the difference between these concepts would have to be explained by someone more versed in legal matters than me -- there is a difference, though.
|
Urheberrecht
is the original Copyright. What people (and probably you too) confound, are the
Ancillary Rights - the rights of the studios/editors/publishers/etc. Actually, this is exactly where the copyright system is abused to. Breaking DRM (like geographic distribution rights) is not an infringement of the copyright but one of one of the ancillary rights. Many authors also cede their rights to studios to manage them, but in the end, the difference is/should be clear.
To be more clear.
The author writes a book. Its
content falls under the copyright concept and law. He is protected for the duration of his life plus 70 to 95 years for the
content of the book. But someone else, the editor/publisher,
prints the book (under the permission of the author,
of course, or they will have infringed themselves the copyright). This editor enjoys now the Ancillary rights, which have been raised recently from 50 years since the
first public demonstration (or "last word written" date for unpublished works) to 95 IIRC (to keep Mickey Mouse still under copyright). Someone publishing the same book will infringe both the author and editor's rights, but if he
rewrite himself the book only the author's right. This is why editors always try to get the
exclusivity clause from the author, simply by enrolling them
under contracts. Because one cannot write in a dead state
the ancillary rights will lapse before the copyright, unless prolonged (irrationally, but aren't most laws this way?!
). After both rights lapse, anyone can distribute the
content and copy the PD-now book. But, by doing this they
start a new ancillary right period, because now they are the editors
, so anyone copying their book may be penalised.
Hope it's (more) clear now