Quote:
Originally Posted by Iphinome
Natural law, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Things like natural rights don't need to enumerated, you have the natural right to urinate there's no law giving you permission you can just let go. Which is why there are laws to prevent you from doing it say in a courtroom. Laws do not create natural rights, they restrict them. There's no natural right to control an idea, there is a natural right to copy you've been doing it since birth, its how you learned language, walking, using a fork. The copyright law restircts this right.
Laws come from society. And yes governments do decide whats yours or at least they decide what isn't yours, any government without that power won't last. They can tax, they can emanate domain, they can seize, they can outlaw. If authors didn't need a grant form society then copyright law wouldn't be necessary, to copy would be impossible. You also need a grant from society to keep your personal possessions, owning something that isn't on your person isn't a natural right either, its a legal one.
Anyway you've already agreed copyright is too long so you've conceded that there is no right to control an idea forever. if it was authors who decided to give things to the public domain then you'd have to say they could decide not to do it after life+70, they can't at least till Disney buys 51 senators and adds another 20 years.
I think you said somewhere you're German, could there be perhaps a language problem here? you seem to have two concepts reversed.
|
Yes and no. I have not used it in the traditional sense as you explained. However, that someone's creation belongs to that person seems universal to me and not in need of special legislation by society. Even animals have personal possessions. Just ask my bird and my dog! Property is as natural as breathing. What is different with personal property in society is that society defends it for you.
So in the end, I wasn't really far off.
With regard to the other matter, I am confused here. If an author says: "this is my work, everyone is free to publish it, to copy it, to use it in any way" -- isn't that exactly like the work being in public domain already? Sure, theoretically he could retract it. But other than that, for all practical purposes, it is just as if the work was in public domain. So each author can decide for himself. He can also give term limited rights to others. I don't see your problem.