|
I have mixed feelings on the issue. On one hand, I want the creative individuals that produce works of art compensated for their time and trouble. I even want to see the "gatekeepers" compensated for sifting through all the crap and finding and promoting the best artists and their works.
On the other hand I DO NOT think intellectual property is the same thing as physical property. Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect that "I don't harm you by using the flame from your torch to light my own." Since the time of Galileo, Newton, and the Age of Enlightenment the sciences have advocated making scientific discoveries freely available. It seems as if only within the last decade or so that scientists have been trying to patent every idea they have even when the ideas are not even physical inventions. I really don't see this as a good thing, and with copyrights it is even worse because they last much longer than a patent.
Some can, and do, argue that part of being human is learning from others, and sometimes that involves copying. It is how we have traditionally spread our culture. Furthermore, they argue that morally they don't see why the original artist should have the right to prevent them from copying. They see laws that prevent copying and the free flow of information as an infringement on their rights, even if they were not the original artist. I personally don't subscribe completely to this view, but it is just as valid a viewpoint as "Nobody can copy anything I create or imagine -- even after I die."
Personally, I'd like to see very short copyrights and patents; let's say 10 years and allow them to be renewed every 10 years. The first 10 years is free (or a nominal fee) and then each 10 year period the renewal fee would go up exponentially (or polynomially). That way Disney can maintain their Mickey Mouse copyright but it might cost them a million dollars for the privilege. However, this would allow ideas and art to pass more quickly into the public domain where they can be copied.
|