Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Yes, I read it all the way through. He basically dismisses the idea of copyright as property and points out that extending the monopoly of copyright past life in reality yields none of the benefits desired, but yields all of the burdens feared. This idea has shown itself to be quite accurate over the years.
I will point out that this is a discussion of European copyright which is a somewhat different tradition than US copyright. US copyright comes from the US Constitution which predates this particular speech.
Lord Mcauley quite correctly points out that it is difficult to square the point of copyright (to encourage writers to produce more books) with the idea of extending copyright past life. I think that the original US copyright term (14 years plus 14 year extension for 28 years) is more than adequate, and that the copyright term that the US has had for most of it's history (28 years plus 14 year extension (28 year extension since 1909)) will ensure that the author gets full benefit of all but a small handful of super popular books.
I have no real issue with allowing an author copyright for his or her lifetime, though I do think that the extension policy (i.e. the author must apply for an extension every X years to maintain the copyright) is a better solution since most authors would allow their copyright to expire once their sales dropped below a particular value as most books do after a couple of years.
|
But Parliament rejected Lord Macaulay's arguments and eventually chose Life+50 with no registration from 1910. There is no evidence that the British Empire suffered much.
The American system proved a recipe for paradise for bureaucrats, pirates and lawyers and methods for robbing foreigners. It wasn't until the same methods threatened to rob Americans that the US joined the Berne Convention.