Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I realised there was a blindingly obvious response...
Disney.
Treating copyright as property (as the law currently does) seems to have been working for them. And since pretty much everyone has heard of Mickey Mouse, it seems the legal protections - even if they are after the fact - are working to a sufficient extent that Disney is still in business. It turns out that just because others are aware of the idea or work does not mean they feel they can get away with trying to exploit that idea or work. Wow, imagine that, and we didn't even have to kill them. 
Isn't Disney sufficient proof that copyright law does in fact protect IP? All arguments to the contrary would seem to be bundles of cereal stalks tied together in a bipedal shape. |
Counter example....
China.
Copyright works because most people are law-abiding citizens and have been brought up to at least try to do the morally "right" thing to do. Add to that that yes, most people don't think they could "get away with" infringing the copyright on Disney stuff. Ergo, most people don't infringe copyright. That's a good thing.
Now, if you want to actually address my actual point though, let's discuss what happens when the copyright runs out. (assuming it ever does which is looking increasingly unlikely)
Anyone who wants to use Mikey Mouse will be legally allowed to do so. That's because copyright doesn't protect the "idea" of Mikey Mouse. It grants a limited time protection to the work done to create the specific character of Mikey Mouse.
If one wants to argue that that work should be protected in perpetuity then I think they should be able to give a rational argument as to why that should be but a builder should not be given the same protection for the work they do.
Have at it...