Quote:
Originally Posted by hildea
Can we agree that the purpose of copyright is to give creators a reasonable amount of artistic and commercial control over their works, and to give humanity a reasonable amount of access to our cultural heritage?
|
Umm... no. At least, not in those words. Copyright is not designed to give us access to our cultural heritage at all. All the following paragraph is just my opinion, of course.
The purpose of copyright is encourage creators to create. Any extension of copyright beyond the minimum required for that purpose costs the public far more than is gained by the creator, and so is a net loss for society.
I am very much in agreement with McCauley on this, so I'll quote a few bits from his speech to the House of Commons that was made over 150 years ago. I think his words are still true, and the references in them to books and reading clearly apply also to music, film, etc.
"It is desirable that we should have a supply of good books; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are liberally remunerated: and the least objectionable way of remunerating them is by means of copyright."
"an advantage that is to be enjoyed more than half a century after we are dead, by somebody, we know not by whom, perhaps by somebody unborn, by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive at all to action"
[When discussing the extra cost to the public, estimated at £20,000, had Dr Johnson's dictionary had a life+50 years copyright]
"I think it but fair that we should pay twenty thousand pounds in consideration of twenty thousand pounds’ worth of pleasure and encouragement received by Dr. Johnson. But I think it very hard that we should pay twenty thousand pounds for what he would not have valued at five shillings."
In short, my opinion that copyright is necessary, but that it is currently far too long. Unfortunately, I can see no prospect of that changing.