4 ms·
I did not want to get into this debate but oh well. >Yes, and society has decided that the proper balance in >that tradeoff is to give creators the choice in d
by prayag 15y ago
I did not want to get into this debate but oh well.
>Yes, and society has decided that the proper balance in >that tradeoff is to give creators the choice in deciding >when particular copies of their works are made available to >the public, which means that it is in fact their choice.
Not true. There is a fixed length to which copyright on your work lasts. Its not forever and you don't decide the length.
Why do you think the society puts a limit on it? Because in essence copyright is a restrictive right. It tells you what you CANNOT do. Copyright is not a right but a privilege in the sense that it tells others not to make copies of the work that you created first.
The real reason of having a copyright is not 'for the advancement of science (and culture)'. It is to incentivize the copyright owners to share their creation so in that sense the copyright law is actually created to promote sharing.
- tzs 15y agoYou don't decide the length, but while copyright is still in effect for your work, society has decreed that you get to decide when particular copies are first made available to the public.
- prayag 15y agoCopyright comes into existence the moment you create a work. You may do whatever you want with it. Society leaves it to your discretion. Yours is a moot point.
- tzs 15y agoSo, basically--you create a work, copyright attaches at the moment of creation (not actually correct, but close enough for this discussion), and then you get to do whatever you want with it. Society lets the creator decide. Isn't that my position? You seem to be arguing the same side as me. Shouldn't one of us take the opposite side--I believe that is the customary way to argue. :-)
- prayag 15y agoThere is no arguing with the facts. Copyright does attach itself at the moment of creation and that limits other people's free speech right when it comes to using your work. However, as I was pointing out, there's a limit on your rights, like for how long you get it, what is restrictive and what isn't (fair use etc.) It is not a free ride. Especially since it is a restriction on 1st amendment, the American courts have taken a fairly narrow view on what you can restrict people from doing. There are restrictions exactly because its a limitation on other people's free speech. And thats my point.