Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey
We disagree on copyright. I think it should last forever. The public has no right to gain free use of someone else's creativity just because a period of time has elapsed.
|
And what would be the benefit to the public of using public resources (e.g., courts) to uphold the "rights" of Shakespeare 500 years later, or Jane Austen 150 years later? So their great, great, great, great, great-grandkids would never have to work? Where's the public benefit in that?
Copyright (and patents) were seen by the US's founding fathers as a bargain. You get the full power of the government to enforce your rights -- but not forever, and the creator's part of the bargain is that after that exclusive period (which is quite freaking long by any reasonable estimation, benefiting not only the creator but at least two generations afterward), the work is free for the public to use. So that high schools and philharmonics and community theaters and libraries other institutions can share/perform the work for the benefit of the public, without further cost.
Take your argument to its logical conclusion, and why should it only be limited to works of authorship? Maybe I shouldn't be able to enjoy a 19th century table or Craftsman house or vintaqe dress without paying that creator for their "creativity" too, despite the fact that they were originally compensated just as they had expected to be. But Shakespeare and Jane Austen both created their works without any expectation that 20 generations removed, their descendants would still be collecting checks. Do you really think that high schools performing Romeo & Juliet should be paying residuals to Shakespeare's relatives? Seriously?