4 ms·
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
by lukifer 13y ago
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I challenge anyone to honestly make the claim that a copyright that lasts 100 years after death aids the progress of science and useful arts.
- ern 13y agoI am generally in favor of reduced copyright terms, as a consumer of these works, but the thought has crossed my mind, that authors may be motivated, to some extent, by the idea that they are leaving a long-term financial legacy. I come from an extended family that once had substantial commercial real-estate holdings, mostly bought by my great-grandfather, and my grandfather and his brothers, with the explicit intention that these properties would help to support multiple generations of descendents . Most of them were lost, but even now, I derive a small income from a share in one of the properties, that I am grateful for, since I apply it for the benefit of my own children. Although the real-estate/IP analogy does break down at some point, should authors of works not have the right to ensure that their works benefit their granchildren, and great-grandchildren? Does this help to motivate at least some of them? These are not rhetorical questions, and it would be interesting to see what the answer is.
- drakaal 13y agoI challenge you to prove that making movies which are based on public domain content does either. This is rarely a "Science" debate and more often an economics debate. Which is better? Wizard of Oz in the public domain so Disney can make movies with out paying a royalty? or Mickey Mouse not in the public domain so you can't make movies about him?