Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
I just can't agree with that, as again it's a very communistic type of statement.
A creator takes nothing from society. They create something, decide to sell it. People are free to decide to buy it or not. The creator doesn't owe society anything, nor does society owe the creator anything.
I get the origin of copyright, I just think it's a bunch of horseshit. Progress isn't halted by copyright as anyone can still access the material be it buying it or freely through libraries, public viewings etc.
The only reason to oppose copyright is greed from people who want to rip it off and sell it as their own, and people who want to get stuff for free. Progress is not halted by copyright.
Again, I agree copyright shouldn't last for every, a decade or so after death is sufficient. But I don't feel that way because of silly sense of the common good/progress of the arts--but because the creator is dead and there's no one else entitled to make money off his creation, so I'm fine with it turning over to society then.
|
A counter point. Disney started by taking public domain stories, putting his spin on them and releasing them. This has enhanced the culture. However, through the acts of the Disney corporation, others can not do the same with work that Walt Disney made. Perhaps, if copyright were held to the original terms when he did his work, we would have seen the culture progress farther.
Problem with your argument, and the entitled view, is the creator had nothing before the copyright acts. They could create or not, but the right of reproduction was not property, could not be stolen, etc. There is only one thing that grants this to the creator, and that is the various copyright laws where society says we will give up this right we have and grant you a limited monopoly to reproduce this work. The reason society decided to give up this right they had was it was seen as an overall good for the whole. It was not, and should not be about the creator directly. Otherwise, your are taking from the many for the few without an overall good.
So if copyright is horseshit, then the best thing is for everything to instantly be in the public domain (the way it was before copyright), and a creator may create or not, their choice? I don't think that is a good thing, and I think our culture would suffer for it (although there would still be creation happening).
--Carl