Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
You've been in agreement that it should be a fixed-term, shortish thing. The extensions to 40 years, 50, 70, life+70 are all later additions that were hardly thought necessary, or beneficial to society as a whole, by the guys who first wrote it. The difference between what, 20 years, and life+50 or 70 is rather large, wouldn't you say? The U.S. Congress first exercised its power to enact copyright legislation with the Copyright Act of 1790. The Act secured an author the exclusive right to publish and vend "maps, charts and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right of renewal for one additional 14 year term if the author was still alive. Also, while "some people" doens't constitute a reason to change, unenforced laws generally tend to die. Furthermore, there's the "change of attitude" thing that can be long in coming (see MLK).
Exceptions happen, and things change. |
Yes, I agree that the current copyright is too long. That doesn't mean that copyright itself should die, though. As for "unenforced" laws, there is almost no chance that copyright itself will ever be unenforced. People tend to enjoy getting paid for their work, and tend to
not enjoy other people stealing and/or taking credit for their work.
The comparison to MLK is wrong-headed. It's actually the polar opposite of the situation with piracy. You're comparing someone fighting for justice for a group of ne'er-do-wells fighting for
injustice, in the form of intellectual theft.
People who do work deserve to get paid what the market will bear. If you don't want to buy it, don't.
It's one thing to argue for DRM-free content. I support that, and think the market will move in that direction once the powers-that-be are satisfied that more people will buy content than will steal it. But organizations like The Pirate Bay are antithetical to that goal, because they encourage (gleefully so, apparently) people to violate copyright and distribute works for free which should be paid for.