> What's at issue is how to maximze the benefit to the public good. If > there were no copyright there would be less incentive to create art and > invent things, but if there is too much (like an eternal term, or life > of the author + 70 years) it doesn't create [much] more of an incentive > [to create], but only hurts the public by restricting access. Therefore > there should be an ideal finite period for copyrights which maximizes > the public good.
Yes I certainly agree with that sensible observation. Personally I would happily strip copyright five years after the artists death or 20 years after the production. Who care about their relatives staying rich forever or someone living off something they got lucky with 30 years ago (star wars?). So old films and music and books and designs and inventions I would strip of copyright. However the world would not work if copyright lost meaning. I don't think there are many people who seriously think that should be the case (if it was, China would mass produce everything anyone else in the world invented, and pay them nothing for it, and the US economy would collapse overnight), and just because we like free music doesn't mean it should be an exception. -- willyhoops ------------------------------------------------------------------------ willyhoops's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10563 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
