Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
That may well be the rational behind copyright, but that's a bunch of socialist/communist bull crap is what it is.
F*** the good of society. If I was blessed with talent I'd be creating stuff to make as much money as I can, not for the good of society. People suck.
I just find the notion that people have to create stuff for the good of society offensive on all levels. Anyone can choose to do so. They should also be able to choose to make stuff solely for profit just like corporations like Microsoft etc.
|
OK, if that is what it is, then society will not give you the protection (what it was before the copyright acts). You can create, but once you let it out, it is out. Or you can get a patron, and create through patronage. Again, you get what you patron is willing to give you, and you create what he wants.
This is what existed before copyright. Copyright was designed as the least evil way (as opposed to patronage, or giving publishers copyright) to let creators create. Like it or not, when you create you add to the culture you create in, good or bad. Copyright is a license to allow that creation to happen and to compensate the creators.
Society finds that to be an acceptable trade to the creators to have the culture advanced.
Microsoft is in the same boat, although they also use patents, which are the same idea (temporary monopoly), but haven't been extended to the obscene lengths of copyrights (there is some backlash building here too).
So let's pretend we have a societal backlash, and copyrights are put back to a 14yr term (with maybe a 14yr extension). Would it stop creators from creating? Most money off of a book, image, code base, etc is made long before 14yrs is up. Disney (major lobbyist/pusher for longer copyright terms), took from the public domain, but fight like hell to prevent their work from entering it. Isn't that against the concept of why copyright is granted.
To take a US view (other western nations, the reasoning is the same, even if the words are different).
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8
Quote:
|
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
|
The only purpose that the copyright is granted is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Now, would a 14yr term do this better than life +70yrs? If the creation is lost to society before that term is up, does it not go against the purpose of copyright? If so, why should we as a people extend that license at all?
And for the record, I do make use of copyright on creations, and I do impose licenses on those creations. However, I hate when corporations buy politicians, and they pass laws that go against the letter and spirit of the constitution of this country (US). Especially when it is written as clearly as this section is.
--Carl