3 ms·
This is to say nothing of the fundamental legal abhorrence of the idea of retroactive copyright extensions. Copyright exists as an incentive to create works; i
by ruytlm 8y ago
This is to say nothing of the fundamental legal abhorrence of the idea of retroactive copyright extensions.
Copyright exists as an incentive to create works; in return for creating them, the creator gains exclusive right to monetise the work for a period of time, before that work passes into the public domain and becomes part of shared culture.
If I've already been incentivised by copyright to create something, and have in fact created it, how can a retroactive extension of copyright further incentivise me to create the thing I've already created?
If I paid someone to build a house, and they built it, it would be absurd to go back to them after the house is built and pay them more money to make sure they build the house that they've already built.
- quadrangle 8y agoNote that I am personally anti-copyright at this point. But the idea that retroactive copyright extension cannot incentivize creativity is a bad argument. Retroactive extension sabotages the public domain. Without the public domain, there is more incentive for new work. If we DESTROYED all books written more than 10 years ago, I guarantee there'd be an increase in sales of newer books. This is obviously not in the public interest. It's the broken-window fallacy at best. Yes, copyright extension is like paying the builder of your house extra for no reason. But it's also like charging extra fees for the ways older houses aren't up to the latest codes as a shitty way to further reduce their value in the market in order to give new construction a better competitive edge. Not that it's good to build new houses as an end in itself if there's good older houses available — but if you're focused on the interests of home-builders instead of the public interest…