XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: jimgysin@geemail.com
Dr Nancy's Sweetie sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:41 PM:
> Somebody wrote, of copyrights:
>> The current 105 year span (likely to be expanded again by Disney
>> lobbying) is ridiculous.
>
> "Jim Gysin " replied:
>> Why? Because it's not what you want?
>
> The original justification is "to promote the progress of science and
> useful arts", and I don't think a copyright term longer than the
> average life expectancy does that.
The fact that you refer to it as "justification" speaks volumes. Is
there any reason why you didn't use "reason" instead?
And FWIW, promoting progress wasn't the *only* original "justification,"
either.
> I think the current copyright terms do the exact opposite: they
> undermine creativity and useful arts. Consider that Disney's animation
> studio had produced drek for years, and the only way they were able to
> rejuvenate themselves was to buy Pixar and let the Pixar people run the
> place. They hadn't had a decent original idea in years, because they
> didn't NEED to: they are still profiting off Walt Disney's original
> work, even though he's been dead for over 40 years.
Is there a law that requires them to generate new ideas on a regular
basis? Does society have a "right" to expect it out of them? Does
society have some sort of claim on them?
> He's not going to
> produce anything new, and he's no longer getting any reward for his
> work. The only people earning money on it now are people who had
> nothing whatever to do with its creation and aren't actually doing
> very much that's useful. So letting them hold copyrights on Walt
> Disney's work doesn't seem to be consistent with the purpose of
> copyrights.
Again, you're pushing a false premise that states that there was only
one initial "justification" for copyright law.
> Some who object to copyrights are, quite likely, trying to get
> something for free which they should pay for. Artists have to eat,
> and while maybe in some perfect world we could do without any form of
> patent or copyright protection, we don't live in that perfect world.
>
> I'm 100% in favor of copyrights and patents. But they are a kludge:
> you can't own an idea.
No one is suggesting that anyone "owns" the concept of music, or
television, or the book. OTOH, some of us *are* arguing that certain
songs and shows and novels should continue to be unavailable to those
who are too cheap to buy a legal copy of their own.
> You get exclusive right to benefit from it
> because society works better that way, but it's a balancing of different
> kinds of problems.
Again, no one is likely to argue that an *idea* should be hoarded.
Rather, they are arguing that the *application* of an idea (as in, say,
the *idea* of animation in terms of Disney and Mickey Mouse) can fairly
be hoarded from those who refuse to pay for access.
> Copyrights that last 105 years seem to be unbalanced, because it's not
> clear that 105 years provides any extra benefit to the creators. And
> so you have to ask "If Walt Disney gets no benefit from that 105-year
> term, who does benefit?"
The people that Disney designated to be the heirs of his creativity.
> So far as I can make out, nobody who does
> benefit from the extended copyright term had anything to do with the
> creation of that art, and so it's not clear to me that the term does
> anything worthwhile.
I would argue that it doesn't *have* to do anything worthwhile beyond
protecting creative people and their chosen beneficiaries. Of course,
we both realize that this is all academic, given that there are people
right here on these groups who freely admit to downloading illegal
torrents of shows and movies that are barely a year old, if that.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
