4 ms·

Stallman's written on that before; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

by gjm11 17y ago

Stallman's written on that before; see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html . His position (which, for what it's worth, seems correct to me) is that I.8 of the US constitution says that the purpose of copyright is simply "to promote the progress of science and useful arts", and sees "protecting and rewarding the author" as a means to that end, not as something to be balanced against it. (Note also that the Constitution doesn't say that there must or should be copyright; only that Congress is permitted, for the specific purpose mentioned, to establish copyright.) If it turned out that copyright actually works against "the progress of science and useful arts", a believer in "balancing" might think it should stay anyway, to protect and reward authors. Stallman would not, and the US Constitution does seem to be on his side. (I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional.)

ErrantX 17y ago
I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional This is my issue with that entire point. I don't see how current is hampering arts and science, really. Which is a problem because people can turn around and say so; which works to invalidate the argument. It's a key point because it's what we need to consider when revising copyright law properly; but for dismantling the current law it doesn't seem, currently, a strong argument.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  > I don't see how current [copyright law?] is hampering arts and science, really. Seriously? As one example, people who go to prestigious universities with big libraries can get access to all of the scientific output in the world, while others, especially in places without good public libraries, can't get access to that material. If copyright was a more reasonable term, all of that material older than some date could be digitized and widely distributed. This couldn't but help science. As another, a large portion of the current amateur cultural output (youtube videos, covers of songs, &c.) is currently illegal. But this illegality is out-of-sync with common understandings of the legitimacy of various uses. It's absurd to justify people's grandchildren (or unrelated people or corporations who bought the rights sometime) collecting royalties for the creative output of 70 years ago with the argument that the original creation wouldn't have happened without such "incentive". * * * As for constitutionality, this is a matter which properly belongs to the legislature IMO, not the courts. I just wish our legislators were a bit less beholden to Disney & friends.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    You've got me on the first one... The second doesn't necessarily seem to be hampering the arts and science (unless, I suppose, we are saying it hampers access to the arts - which I might agree with).
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  The UK government set up a committee to look into copyright and their economic analysis suggested that copyright was already 30 years too long if promoting economic activity was the goal and should be reduced to 20. I know you've made a distinction between "revising" and "dismantling" current law (which by the way Stallman isn't in favour of, he has slightly more complex ideas) but since the industry was pushing for an extra 45 years to be added I'd guess they'd see 75 years less of copyright as pretty much the same magnitude as total dismantlement.

by gjm11 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

I am not claiming, and I don't know whether Stallman would, that copyright laws that can be shown to impede the progress of science and useful arts would actually be unconstitutional This is my issue with that entire point. I don't see how current is hampering arts and science, really. Which is a problem because people can turn around and say so; which works to invalidate the argument. It's a key point because it's what we need to consider when revising copyright law properly; but for dismantling the current law it doesn't seem, currently, a strong argument.

jacobolus 17y ago
> I don't see how current [copyright law?] is hampering arts and science, really. Seriously? As one example, people who go to prestigious universities with big libraries can get access to all of the scientific output in the world, while others, especially in places without good public libraries, can't get access to that material. If copyright was a more reasonable term, all of that material older than some date could be digitized and widely distributed. This couldn't but help science. As another, a large portion of the current amateur cultural output (youtube videos, covers of songs, &c.) is currently illegal. But this illegality is out-of-sync with common understandings of the legitimacy of various uses. It's absurd to justify people's grandchildren (or unrelated people or corporations who bought the rights sometime) collecting royalties for the creative output of 70 years ago with the argument that the original creation wouldn't have happened without such "incentive". * * * As for constitutionality, this is a matter which properly belongs to the legislature IMO, not the courts. I just wish our legislators were a bit less beholden to Disney & friends.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  You've got me on the first one... The second doesn't necessarily seem to be hampering the arts and science (unless, I suppose, we are saying it hampers access to the arts - which I might agree with).
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
The UK government set up a committee to look into copyright and their economic analysis suggested that copyright was already 30 years too long if promoting economic activity was the goal and should be reduced to 20. I know you've made a distinction between "revising" and "dismantling" current law (which by the way Stallman isn't in favour of, he has slightly more complex ideas) but since the industry was pushing for an extra 45 years to be added I'd guess they'd see 75 years less of copyright as pretty much the same magnitude as total dismantlement.