The basic rebuttal to this argument that I usually offer is that copyright was designed as a balance between private and public interests.
By granting a limited monopoly (what the constitution says) over the exclusive rights to a work, we are able to motivate creators to create in the first place. But the public should get something in return (this is how democratic government treats monopolies they oblige) and that should be the public domain. This means that copyright terms should be limited. Your commenter seems to think that they shouldn't be. So that's a place to start. If they believe that copyright terms should be limited, the question is to what extent. Copyright was originally designed for 14 years of restriction, plus another 14 if renewed, but now extends 70 years after the author's death. If you acknowledge that a line needs to be drawn, then you must also acknowledge that it should be sensible and speak to the original balance of copyright. In a lot of people's opinions (esp. those on this list) that line should be much more limited. Your commenter might say that real estate works in the same way -- investment in a building should be able to return for future generations. There are many things wrong with this analogy beginning with the fact that it is based on a category mistake. That is, intellectual creations and physical property are not of the same "thing" or "category." Intellectual works are controlled using artificial laws and rules such as copyright, whereas physical property is governed by immutable laws of reality (such as the current inability to duplicate objects at no cost infinitely.) I hope that helps. Best, Fred On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Nina Paley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm engaged in argument with a clueless but possibly educable reader at > http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/ > > Inevitably, after I explained how copyright has been changed retroactively, > and works that should have entered the Public Domain remain privatized, I > got this: > > "# iggy Says: > September 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am e > ok. one more question. if warner bros. wants to use part of your film in > "batman 23″ and "batman 23″ goes on to make 300 trillion dollars, do you or > your heirs want any part of those profits? or are you just glad that > millions of people will have seen a part of it? what rights do you have in > your film and do you put any monetary value on those rights? > (don't flip out over the example of commingling your film with a studio > movie. it's just for arguments sake)." > > > I'm sure many of you have been engaged in arguments that equate creative > work made 80 years ago with work made yesterday. This is of course Apples > and Oranges (although I personally feel dissemination of my work is more > important than monetization, I also believe a reformed copyright with time > limits would benefit artists like me. But the completely corrupt copyright > mess we have now is bad for artists and culture). > > How do you usually explain these finer points of copyright? Anyone want to > help educate those in need by commenting in the thread at > > http://blog.ninapaley.com/2008/08/26/music-industry-on-culture-killing-spree/ > ? > > Thanks, > > --Nina > > > > * * * * * * * * * > > Nina Paley > > Animator/Illustrator/Cartoonist > > http://www.ninapaley.com > > http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
