Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
It is, if you actually comprehend it.  To be explicit yet again: Copyright law requires that at a certain point in time, works go into the public domain. In a contract-only environment, no such law exists. Therefore, publishers could legally write a contract that permanently holds the rights, or the rights could revert to the author at a certain point. I.e. in a contract-only environment, works will never go into public domain unless an individual or organization explicitly chooses to surrender the rights. Plus, companies wouldn't need to lobby Congress for extensions, since they'd have hold perpetual rights via the contracts. Not to mention that you'd have to agree to a contract every single time you buy an object -- a process that would drown us all in legalese. Or, that retailers could design highly restrictive rights, treat all purchases as licenses or leases of limited duration, deny you the legal right to lend or resell works, deny you the ability to parody or quote for fair use, etc. |
Is it always hard for you to refrain from trying to insult your peers? Or are you under the impression that it actually advances your argument to do so? If you'll take a hint, it seems a rather ineffective strategy from where I'm standing.
In any case, I'm not sure where you saw me saying I thought contract law offered a viable alternative strategy to copyright law, because I don't believe I ever suggested it. As such, I'm not really sure why you're telling me that contract law would be more restrictive, and as such a bad alternative, because I never argued it should be considered as such.
Yes, contract law wouldn't work, but the conclusion wouldn't be more restrictions, but just a dilution of the effectiveness of contract law, as the amount of infringements would overwhelm any legal system.
To return to the point I made, however, see this:
Now, not
all of these term extensions were retroactive, but the 2 most recent (post the invention of recorded-music/movies/TV)
were.
Lastly, consider the F/OSS movement: Apparently some people can live with only getting
recognition, as well as occasional donations. Now I know (most) authors are a touch more self-important than most F/OSS developers, (and Don Quixote and the Divine Comedy were also written before copyright was invented) so I don't really see the principled argument that teaches us that a world without copyright would not work.
The internet has given all companies enormously expanded potential markets; just as with easier transportation through rail/automobiles, this also meant that they encountered more competition, because regional monopolies became impossible to maintain. Similarly with the internet, it seems very acceptable that the increased reach is accompanied by increased competition (if you define competition as a push to lower prices; this is, after all, the net effect piracy will have in the long term).
Change destroys business models, sure.. but I'm not sure why business models should be considered holy anyway.