|
The problem with the underlying concept of perpetual copyright is that it conflates two very different concepts as one.
Property, which is usually thought of as real property, such as land, in this comparison. Land is a fixed stock there is only so much of it. (Let's not quibble about filling in swamps to create more land.) It existed before Man came onto the scene, it will exist after Man leaves the scene. The question is who controls any particular piece of it. That is where you get perpetual ownership of property.
Copyright is a totally different subject. It is not property. There is no fixed stock of copyright. More is created all the time. Think of it like a factory product (which in a sense it is). A factory produces a good for sale. It often has an expiration date, after which the product is no longer suitable for it's intended use, and should be disposed of. There is no perpetual ownership of the property created by the factory, the ownership of the product transfers with the sale of said product.
So why shouldn't the factory only produce the same exact product, over and over again? It is cheaper and more efficient. Governments around the world are of the opinion the new products enrich everybody, providing more choice. So they have embedded limited monopolies to encourage new products. Those laws are not there to create new perpetual product lines, but to create new product lines, over and over again. Part of the deal is that those monopolies expire, to encourage new products.
Let me ask the question - how can a new artist compete with cheaper old art? And who gets the royalties on the old work? The heirs? What if there aren't any? A perpetual corporation like Disney? There are a lot of holes in the reasoning. . . .
|