Copyright actually originated not to protect artists but as a means of government censorship. It has quite an interesting history. But its reason for existence soon came to be what it ostensibly exists for today. The US Constitution specifies the raison de etre for copyright as:
Quote:
|
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
|
Unfortunately these worthy goals have been subverted, in some cases to the point where they have the opposite effect to that intended. The most notable example of this is the current woeful situation in academic publishing, where progress in at least the Sciences is in fact damaged by copyright. I would argue that it is has also been subverted, though perhaps not to the same extent. Clearly this clause contemplates that the benefits will accrue to "Authors and Inventors". Not Publishers and Investors. But not directly for the purpose of enriching those authors or inventors. For the purpose of promoting the progress of Science and useful Arts. The exploitation of Authors by the Publishing Industry has left little or even no financial incentive for the vast majority of authors. Things are even worse now that the Publishers are part of huge Multinational Groups who are engaging in a rights grab to enhance their balance sheets. Of course, many still write for various reasons, including the sheer love for their art, but would do so irrespective of copyright.
Having said this I do believe we need copyright laws, but sane ones which protect authors from exploitation and make sure that the purposes of copyright law are achieved both in theory and in practice. Copyright should certainly extend to the life of the author. And I think there is a strong case for it continuing for some reasonable time after the authors death. But 70 years? And do we continue to pretend that the benefits of copyright extend to authors when the reality is that most have assigned or licensed that property for the whole term of the copyright? Do we continue to pretend that authors or their heirs are making huge amounts in royalties when in fa t this is true of only a very lucky few? And do we continue to pretend that this continuing extension of the copyright term does anything to promote Science or Useful Arts? It is about time for a re-think.