3 ms·
Can you provide a citation for your opposing view? Here's a more recent quote from the Supreme Court: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but priva
by njs12345 14y ago
Can you provide a citation for your opposing view? Here's a more recent quote from the Supreme Court:
Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author's creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy
- rayiner 14y agoMark Lemley's paper on the subject is my go-to: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602
- njs12345 14y agoInteresting paper, although the author disagrees with that interpretation pretty heavily. I suppose the issue isn't as clear cut as I thought.
- apotheon 14y agoYour go-to source argues that the point of copyright and patent monopolies is actually to incentivize innovation, which conflicts with your own claim that the purpose of copyright and patent monopolies is not to incentivize innovation: > > Intellectual property rights are an exception to that norm, and they are granted only when – and only to the extent that – they are necessary to encourage invention. Meanwhile, you have not offered an alternative justification for copyright monoplies, as far as I've noticed. edit: It's also notable that a major purpose of Lemley's paper is to debunk the notion that there is any meaningful "free rider problem" in the world of patentable and copyrightable, but you claim a "free rider problem" is a major incentive to keep copyright and patent law.