Originally Posted by Hitch
Ralph:
That example is simply not analogous. You know I have mad respect for you, Ralph, but...no.
A mortgage is an instrument into which we enter, in which we owe the mortgage holder repayment for an amount of money we've borrowed. They can't simply--and wouldn't, of course--extend the mortgage for X years, "just because they like the extra money." We have a term and condition of repayment, and we repay it. In that scenario, we have BORROWED money from party X. Party X is legally entitled to repayment. That's a contract, under US Contract Law.
A copyright is a property, whether you like it or not. It's not, under law, a "time-limited monopoly," or whatever those of you opposed to the dura of copyright want to call it. Under the same US law, it IS a type of property. That property belongs to the person who created it. Period. If s/he wishes to publish it, great. We get to use that property, through purchase or borrowing, etc. If we buy a printed version--we have access to the material for the life of the book. If we buy a license, as we all know, that can be less in duration for a variety of reasons--mostly having to do with the vagaries around eBook licensing, our tech having outgrown our laws, in some cases.
The fact that YOU don't like how long the CREATOR is entitled to hold HIS OWN PROPERTY is, well...tough. I like how all of you anti-copyright-term folks are so cavalier about other people's property. Really, Ralph, I'm shocked that you are in this camp. Sorry, but sort of using your example, if I buy a house, and I die, do you think you're entitled to that, too? No? What if I design and build my own house? That's the result of my own creative endeavors, too. Are you entitled to that, when I die?
No? Then why the hell do you think you should be entitled to a creative work? What, the fact that in scenario 2, I actually hammered something with my hands is massively different than if I typed it? Man, that's pretty bloody specious logic.
And, yes, I know, you or the others will come back and go on and on about how the Congress said that it's for the benefit of the public good. Fine. So what? There are a lot of things for the public good that don't result in your ownership of them.
No matter how many times I read positions about how copyright duration is bad, evil, etc., it pretty much always boils down to "It should be invalid because I WANT IT."
Sorry. To me, like ANY business, like ANY earnings, what a person does and earns in his or her lifetime should be able to be passed onto his or her heirs, period. Saying that those who labor in creative fields have some LESSER rights, than those who do other types of work seems, to me, to create an artist's ghetto. An actor can appear in movies from now until hell freezes over, take his wages, and do whatever he wants to with them, upon his demise. Moreover, his kids are ALSO entitled to the rights and royalties from his work, ad infinitum, unless and until such movie stops playing or IT runs out of copyright.
But a writer? Or the screenwriter for that same movie? They should be screwed? They're entitled to something lesser?
Why? Why is the screenwriter for that same movie entitled to less compensation, for fewer years, than a talking head that appears IN it? I fail, utterly, to see the logic. Or that the set-builder for the movie, who can leave his earnings to his kids, etc., etc., etc.
You're basically taking the position, Ralph, that the alleged "good" of the whole is more important than the rights of the individual. Is that the position you really mean to stake out?
What good are you defending? The rights of the individual who wants it, to have the book at no cost? There are public libraries, Ralph, which means that pretty much, ANYONE can avail themselves of the book at no cost. If the discussion is going to now turn to OOP books...well, tough. Sorry, but the heirs of Author X are NOT obliged to make a book available, just because someone wants it. It's now THEIR property.
Lastly, as far as the "everything should have reverted..." argument, my response is simple: laws change. At one point in time, I couldn't vote in this country. Now I can. Slaves were legal; now they are not. Surely, you don't mean to say that original laws are all perfect? We all know that that's obviously not true--and the greatly increased lifespan of humans should be reflected in the law regarding copyrights. Unless, of course, NOW you're going to argue that some author should not be entitled to the rewards of his work in his lifetime?
Hitch
|