Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Inspired by a recent article in the Atlantic, I'd like to discuss the concept of copyright term limits, but, perhaps, bring it in a different direction than usual. In specific, I'd like to talk about framing. I've noticed that hardcore libertarians of the conservative variety, for example, seem to be big proponents of infinite copyright. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In the comments, someone asked "Why shouldn't creators have exclusive rights to their work into perpetuity?" (although not in so many words). This was my response:

Because there are plenty of creators, just as good as you, who would be perfectly fine with that set up, and the public has a general interest in seeing those sorts thrive. These authors are interested not just in future profits but in their legacy, and they have an incentive to produce works that will truly enter the cultural zeitgeist and add something to society.

The public, likewise, has an interesting in seeing those, such yourself, who want the government to play as your personal profit enforcer into perpetuity, wither on the vine. Those who, despite the fact that they feed on the corpses of those who came before and arrogantly atop the shoulders of giants, want to restrict others from being able to do the same without paying their "due".

It is in the public's interest to toss out the parasites and moochers. If the "interest of the creator" is to play the role of a societal parasite, and nothing more, to gain himself an in and then use that to secure himself from future competition and profit endlessly off it's cultural host, expecting infinite reward without providing additional value, then that is what you are - a parasite.

I accept the fact that such parasites will exist, but if the government is going to be doing the dirty work of enabling your parasitism, the least you can do is toss them a few dollars for the privilege, no?

Is this a valid way to frame it, do you think? Is there a better way to put it that conveys some of the same connotations? Is this sort of opinion valid? What do y'all think?

[kaijyuu]

Personally I think creators should have zero control over their work after it's been distributed, with the sole exceptions of things intended to ensure they actually get paid for their work. I feel artists should be able to live off their art. If we ever get a post-scarcity society, then such creator control issues concerning money vanish, and I then feel they should have 0 control whatsoever.

If I buy a chair, I should have full rights to modify that chair in whatever way I wish and redistribute it.


Another concern someone might bring up is credit. Can't say I'm very sympathetic to people just wanting to get their name out there, though... I'd prefer pieces of art stand on their own WITHOUT the artist's name attached. Too many mediocre works are given very high values due entirely to who made them.

[Leafsnail]

If we're talking about incentives raising the copyright length makes no sense.

"Well, I could write this fantastic book I've had in my brain for the past decade.  But... 75 years after my death my estate will stop receiving money from the book!!  Even if by then the average amount of money made per year by a book is a few pence the thought still sickens me.  Why should I even bother?"

The only reason they keep pushing through extensions is to make more money for publishers.  I can't really see any other justification.

[Jerick]

"Why shouldn't creators have exclusive rights to their work into perpetuity?"

Because it's a crutch.
Why take risks producing things when you as a company can just sail along on the benifits of some work you did decades ago?
Does anyone really think that giving infinite copyright will encourage the content industries to actualy make more stuff or make more meaniful stuff?
It stifles creativity more than encourages it.

Aside from that copyright is one of the few issues I feel very strongly about.
I think everyone (content producers included) would benifit by leaving copyright behind them.
The more ways a song is remixed or used elsewhere the more it enters the public conciousness.
The same is true for any other media.
And the more that media is brought to the attention of potential customers the more it will sell.
Simply letting everyone do what they like would be better than chasing the customers over any infringement.