Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
[...] I just don't understand your claim that copyright is the IP itself.
|
I could be on shaky ground here.
But consider that these days copyright comes into existence at the time the work is created, and the copyright cannot be transferred to another work. The two aspects (thing and rights) are effectively inseparable. Consider, too, that it is copyright that effectively gives the work potential value as a property in legal and economic terms.
Without the legal rights you run into the problems cited in that Jessica Dickinson article. An intellectual thing without rights is non-rival and non-excludable. But with those rights, the intellectual thing becomes rival and excludable (which is pretty much the point) and so potentially valuable as an exploitable asset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
[...] 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)
|
You lost me. When did this become your point? I don't recall you mentioning when copyright runs out ... but then we've both talked a lot
, so I might have missed it.
I have
not been arguing in favour of eternal copyright. I think publish + 70 sounds pretty reasonable to all concerned, maybe publish + 50. Not that it matters, the constraints of the Berne Convention mean we are unlikely to see any change below what exists now, however many impassioned discussions happen on MR.
While I am not a fan of perpetual copyright, but I do have some sympathy for what tubemonkey suggested: life + renewal every x years. That would seem to resolve some of the issues surrounding eternal copyright, but ...
Eternity is a long time. The potential for building complications of copyrighted material dependent on copyrighted material strike me as horrendously messy.