Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
Because if someone writes a great book, makes a great album, makes a great movie etc. it is their creation.
If they wanted to do it for the common good, they could have never copyrighted it and just given it to the public.
If it stops selling after a few years, they can start giving it away (assuming they didn't sign away ownership to a publisher).
But if it's something that keeps selling, then they have a right to keep selling it until they die and maybe a bit beyond (for their families).
Sure, their will always be jackasses making illegal copies etc. But they (or publishers they contracted with) should own the rights to making official copies and selling them for profit.
They shouldn't make money for 20 years, or 56 years etc. and then suddenly have it stop (even though it was still selling). It's their property and they should get as much out of it as possible during their lifetimes. If it can sell and make them money for their whole lifetimes, they should reap the benefits of creating something that's so great it can keep selling across decades. Not have to sit around as others make money of their creating once its in the public domain and anyone can copy and sell it etc.
You have a view that leans toward the common good. I live a life about self interest, and again spend every second of every day on activities that benefit myself directly on indirectly. I'll never create anything for the common good. I'll create it because it benefits me in some way, and I better not see others making money off of it during my lifetime!
Since I feel that way, I strongly support copyrights for others who are creating stuff.
|
Wrong, since things are automatically under copyright, this post is copyrighted by me, whether I want it or not.
You have not explained why they should be given a monopoly over something for life. You say they should but not why. Ultimately you believe in excess. Grab everything you can and damn everyone and everything else. I believe in moderation, 56 frakking years all for you then you return it to the world that was kind enough to allow you any kind of monopoly when they didn't have to allow you squat, the US constitution allows copyright laws but in now way requires them. Your argument is a list of reasons why copyright should be abolished because you object to its purpose to promote science and the useful arts. Why aren't you sitting here telling disney to pay the estate of Hans christan Anderson for the little mermaid and Buster Keaton for steamboat willy. Why don't you pay Isac newton a gravity royalty everything you drop something. If something is selling why shouldn't I sell the same thing cheaper your idea or not you talk about what society should be doing for you and refusing to acknowledge that you owe anything for what your being given. What right do you have to copyright without paying for it, doesn't that make you another "jackass" using without paying?
The cost of copyright is its limits, fair use, limited monopoly, public domain. You want rights they come with duties. You buy your copyright with the promise to let go after the time limit. Without said promise you're not entitled to the protection. TANSTAAFL cobber, are you going to pay for your copyright.