Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolenka
We can argue that the terms of copyright have been extended to harm the public domain, and I'd agree... but I don't think that makes the concept of a time limited monopoly as a carrot to give someone an incentive to turn education and entertainment into a career any less valid. It's a balancing act, and views at the extremes ignore the benefit they get from the other side. The time limited monopoly encourages people to actually make a full-time career out of things like research, book writing (educational, editorial, and entertaining), and so on.
|
Nobody can really disagree with the
original intention behind the granting of copyrights (a time limited monopoly to encourage people to make a career in the arts) as being a good thing. It would be rather extreme to argue otherwise. But just WHO is it that is actually gaming the system?
When the time limited copyright monopoly was 14 years (with the possibility of one further extension), people did indeed have a 'reasonable period' in which to attempt to exploit their monopoly for the own individual benefit before it reverted back into the public domain. This was an equitable bargain that both parties accepted as a fair and reasonable compromise that protected both interests, the artisan and the public domain. What more noble intention can a law have? And if both parties follow the rules — all is sweetness and light.
That rose-tinted scenario you paint however, does not even
begin to resemble what copyrights are used for today. You speak so fondly of 'a balancing act' as if it actually exists here and now in the real world, and imply that because I am in receipt of such wondrous benefits from my side of this utopian bargain I should quit whining and enjoy my good fortune. Oh my, if only it were so!
It seems to me that while you have taken your eye of the ball, the copyright maximilists have run away with it.
The fact that the time limits for copyright have been extended to life + 70 (and no doubt will be extended even further) gives lie to ‘middle ground’ view that authors ‘just’ want to make a career in the arts with a ‘reasonable’ expectation of not starving to death while pursuing this goal.
Do they really
need the carrot of making monopoly profit for 70 years after they die before they deign to put pen to paper? I personally consider THAT to be at the extreme end of the bargain, and everything else is nothing more than a sideshow until that abomination is righted. Forget about my minor little infringing — any living author will still be coining it in long after we’re both dead and buried — is that not satisfaction enough to assuage their greed?
The monopoly hoarders have stolen the public domain right out from under our nose. Whether WE all agree between ourselves that the terms of copyright have been extended so far that the public domain is being harmed is irrelevant — we may as well all agree that 1 + 1 = 3 for all the difference THAT makes. The only view that carries any weight is the one that says IT'S MY MONOPOLY — PAY ME.
When power and control over culture is concentrated and exercised at the extreme end of the social contract, its hard to rationalise from a reasonable perspective when all you can see is the boot planted firmly in your face. I don't fall for the 'two legs good, four legs bad' propaganda anymore. Might definitely does
not equal right.
I am required to pay monopoly prices today to the gatekeepers of my culture on a promise of receiving my public domain due at sometime in the future. And, as we have all seen, that future keeps getting pushed further and further forward. Not only that, the last time copyright was extended, works
already in the public domain were brought
back under copyright. Just how many promises must be broken before people get hit with the clue stick?
Well, as you say, the law is the law. Never mind about this silly little
original intention that copyright is based on anymore — we must all follow the law to the letter as defined in today’s new reality, not as how its intentions were originally framed. Authors have the monopoly and publishers have paid for the law; there is nothing I can do about it except eat it. Okay. Fine. But...
That is EXACTLY to the letter, what I AM doing.
The law does not say that I cannot DOWNLOAD a file for my own personal use. It does say that I cannot UPLOAD one (that's naughty — that's distributing), but I certainly am allowed to download to my hearts content. I am. in that regard — a model citizen. Do you not applaud?
No. Oh well, castigate and berate me all you like for being morally depraved and ethically corrupt. Rant at me to your hearts content for being a thief and stealing the very bread from your mouth, from your wife and children’s mouths (and your grand-children’s mouths too for that matter). Tell me all about all the mental pain and anguish I am causing you if you must.
But, I’ll say to the copyright maximilists, DON'T even TRY to kid me into believing that I am not meeting MY obligations under YOUR law. The emperor after all, has no clothes.
Oh, undoubtedly, they despise that loophole in the law that allows me to exercise my fair use rights, probably as much as I loath that loophole that allows the monopoly hoarders to persecutee innocent bit-torrent users for ‘technically uploading’ when they are downloading. (Hint, use FTP instead to remain secure from harassment).
No doubt the legal screws (to wild cheering) will soon be tightened to squeeze me into submission
Never mind, you may crush my bones but not my spirit.