Quote:
Originally Posted by jswinden
I'm of the opinion that copyrights, like real property, should be the possession of whoever inherits them for as long as they live, then repeat that for every subsequent owner. I've never understood why intellectual property is treated any differently. What ever intellectual property I might create or inherit should be mine as long as I live or until I sell the rights to it to someone else. I can see taking away the copyright protections if there is no clear proof of ownership, the works of Aristotle for example, but if inheritance can be proved then the copyright protections should remain intact. I cannot imagine telling Lord Mucketymuck that he has to move out of the manor because the 70 year limit on retaining ownership of the manor has expired, or telling the current owner of their grandparent's homestead they have to allow anyone who wants to, to move onto the property and into the house. Same goes for artwork. There is no expiration on ownership or rights for paintings, so why do we impose them on another form of art called writing? Makes no sense to me.
I don't think we should draw the line at all. People should be free to read whatever they desire in whatever format they desire. I personally prefer to read the original if possible, but I would never require that from others. I'm sure I would enjoy some of the other formats too.
|
Mostly because copyright isn't property. Intellectual property is a term that, rather ironically, was coined in a rhetorical essay pointing out that each idea is based on other people's ideas. Copyright is a legal monopoly granted by the government and has nothing to do with property. Originally a copyright had nothing to do with who originated a work and everything to do with what printer had the king's ear.
Copyright and patents in the US are enshrined in the Constitution as a time limited grant in the public interest. For a copyright to be legally considered property you would have to amend the Constitution.