Quote:
Originally posted by Chuck the plant@Mar 19 2006, 01:52 PM
You contribute to society by what you can do and offer, and society gives you what you need in exchange. Stealing in any way - including stealing intelectual property - is not contributing. It's in fact the opposite. And it's nothing which communist systems would approve of, either.
|
[Emphasis mine]
You said it right there. "Contribute to society" doesn't equate to "maximize profit."
Quote:
Originally posted by Chuck the plant
Many artists have to rely on making money through their art. If not, they would hardly find the time to still be creative, because they would actually have to WORK to make a living, which would in turns mean that there wouldn't be much "art" around anymore... I somehow doubt that this is what you'd want to happen.
|
That's the idea behind copyright, an idea I don't disagree with. However, explain to me how Mickey Mouse remaining under copyright
to this day has allowed Walt Disney (the person, not the company) to continue to make his art. Last I knew he had passed on. Current copyright law is a perversion of the original intent.
What I take issue with is that copyright no longer primarily benefits the artist, it benefits the interests of big business. Commander Keen (the characters, story, etc) was primarily the idea of Tom Hall, for example, but the copyright on the game doesn't protect him and has prevented him from developing new Keen games (something he to this day wishes he could do).
Quote:
Originally posted by Chuck the plant
And no, I see no real reason why "art" of any kind should become "free for all" after any given time. It's the artists' work, it's their property and no one has the right to demand them to "give it free" if they don't want to. Just like nobody should be allowed to force you to open the house you built for the public after any given time.
|
Art is a part of culture; it is intended to benefit all equally. It's public property because it's a part of us all. Art is not intended to be a means of profit and copyright isn't the right to profit. Rather, copyright is intended to promote the arts and encourage artists to continue to contribute to society. I can see -- though I disagree with -- the argument for copyright lasting the lifetime of the creator. How, though, can you defend current copyright terms which last far beyond the creator's lifetime and benefit people who had no hand in creating the original work?
Your analogy to a house is a false one in the same way that calling copyright infringement "theft" is. Copyright would ensure that following the construction of your house that no one be allowed to exactly duplicate the design for a set amount of time (so that you, the builder, could sell it to fund the development of more houses). That in no way changes your right to the original house ("the work"). To put it in more concrete terms, the Mona Lisa is private property belonging to someone (the Louvre I believe) and copyright would have ensured no one the right to duplicate the work for some amount of time. The rationale behind limiting that amount of time is that the public has an inherent right to benefit from that work and allowing a single entity to restrict viewing is unjust -- hence why we are all able to enjoy photographs of it. Shakespeare is another prime example of this.