3 ms·

How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works?? There isn't a single valid reason to ever extend copyright retroa

How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works?? There isn't a single valid reason to ever extend copyright retroactively unless the goal is forever copyright. Does the gov't at least get a portion of the take when granting longer monopoly privileges?

rbehrends 14y ago
Well, we're talking about Europe here, and the rationale underlying continental European copyright is not the same as that for British/US copyright. Continental European copyright (which generally is not called "copyright", but some variation on "author's right", such as "droit d'auteur") assumes that authors have a natural, personal, inalienable right in their creations (following Kant and Beaumarchais) because each creative work embodies part of the author's personality. In short: the continental European model treats copyright as a right, not as a privilege. Whether that right encourages people to produce new works is absolutely irrelevant under that theory; its goal is to protect authors, not to incentivize creation. Note, for example, that under French law, moral rights are indeed perpetual, lasting forever (which does create the occasional problem for museums).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
streptomycin 14y ago
It gives hope to current content producers that their copyrights are more likely to be extended (or at least not reduced), which would clearly encourage them. It's still a bad idea IMHO, but the incentives are clear.
muuh-gnu 14y ago
> How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works? You wrongly assume that a reasoning for a law has to actually make sense. You can push basically any logically inconsistent apologetics into law, as long as you have enough people in power supporting you. You're wasting your time trying to logically explain something what was never built on sound reasoning in the first place. It's just a power-based money grab, thats it.

rbehrends 14y ago

Well, we're talking about Europe here, and the rationale underlying continental European copyright is not the same as that for British/US copyright. Continental European copyright (which generally is not called "copyright", but some variation on "author's right", such as "droit d'auteur") assumes that authors have a natural, personal, inalienable right in their creations (following Kant and Beaumarchais) because each creative work embodies part of the author's personality. In short: the continental European model treats copyright as a right, not as a privilege. Whether that right encourages people to produce new works is absolutely irrelevant under that theory; its goal is to protect authors, not to incentivize creation. Note, for example, that under French law, moral rights are indeed perpetual, lasting forever (which does create the occasional problem for museums).

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

streptomycin 14y ago

It gives hope to current content producers that their copyrights are more likely to be extended (or at least not reduced), which would clearly encourage them. It's still a bad idea IMHO, but the incentives are clear.

muuh-gnu 14y ago

> How does extending copyright on already created works encourage people to produce new works? You wrongly assume that a reasoning for a law has to actually make sense. You can push basically any logically inconsistent apologetics into law, as long as you have enough people in power supporting you. You're wasting your time trying to logically explain something what was never built on sound reasoning in the first place. It's just a power-based money grab, thats it.