3 ms·

>Since the entire point of copyright is that you only get this protection so that the work may eventually enter the public domain I've never heard that describ

by eurleif 12y ago

>Since the entire point of copyright is that you only get this protection so that the work may eventually enter the public domain I've never heard that described as the purpose of copyright law. Why would it be? In the absence of copyright law, all works would effectively be in the public domain. I believe you're thinking of patent law. To get a patent, you have to release the details of your invention, which you could keep private otherwise. There's nothing equivalent with copyright law.

forgottenpass 12y ago
I've never heard that described as the purpose of copyright law. Why would it be? In the absence of copyright law, all works would effectively be in the public domain. It's funny, when they passed the Copyright Term Extension Act the opponents of the bill literally argued to congress that it was killing the American philosophy that the purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of works that eventually fall into the public domain. In the United States, Copyright and Patent law derive from the "Copyright Clause" of the Constitution: 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. This enables patent and copyright law. Patents do demand disclosure of details, but if you weren't worried someone would reverse engineer your product and get it to market before your patent expired, you'd just keep the details a trade secret. So I don't see how the disclosure aspect factors into duration. If it wasn't already, the CTEA turned the length of copyright protection into a function of the American movie and music industries ability to lobby congress with sob stories. I'm not even trying to be snide towards congress with that remark, ask anyone in IP law what they think will happen next time Steamboat Willy is set to drop into the public domain.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> I've never heard that described as the purpose of copyright law. Why would it be? That's because those who benefit from it don't want you to know the original purpose. If that's not the purpose, why even have copyright at all? It's strictly a rent-seeking behavior. > I believe you're thinking of patent law. Copyrights were originally for a term of 14 years... the same as patents. I'm not confused about them. > There's nothing equivalent with copyright law. These are referenced in the US Constitution itself. And yet you're apparently ignorant of the purpose behind them. Why do you think copyright exists? So that random assholes can stake out some arbitrary permutation of ideaspace and collect tolls til the end of eternity? They included it so that creative people would be encouraged to create works that would eventually enter the public domain.
- eurleif 12y ago
  >If that's not the purpose, why even have copyright at all? To encourage creative works. This may or may not lead to expanding the public domain, but those are not equivalent. >These are referenced in the US Constitution itself. The constitution references encouraging creativity. It does not reference expanding the public domain.

by eurleif 12y ago

forgottenpass 12y ago

I've never heard that described as the purpose of copyright law. Why would it be? In the absence of copyright law, all works would effectively be in the public domain. It's funny, when they passed the Copyright Term Extension Act the opponents of the bill literally argued to congress that it was killing the American philosophy that the purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of works that eventually fall into the public domain. In the United States, Copyright and Patent law derive from the "Copyright Clause" of the Constitution: 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. This enables patent and copyright law. Patents do demand disclosure of details, but if you weren't worried someone would reverse engineer your product and get it to market before your patent expired, you'd just keep the details a trade secret. So I don't see how the disclosure aspect factors into duration. If it wasn't already, the CTEA turned the length of copyright protection into a function of the American movie and music industries ability to lobby congress with sob stories. I'm not even trying to be snide towards congress with that remark, ask anyone in IP law what they think will happen next time Steamboat Willy is set to drop into the public domain.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> I've never heard that described as the purpose of copyright law. Why would it be? That's because those who benefit from it don't want you to know the original purpose. If that's not the purpose, why even have copyright at all? It's strictly a rent-seeking behavior. > I believe you're thinking of patent law. Copyrights were originally for a term of 14 years... the same as patents. I'm not confused about them. > There's nothing equivalent with copyright law. These are referenced in the US Constitution itself. And yet you're apparently ignorant of the purpose behind them. Why do you think copyright exists? So that random assholes can stake out some arbitrary permutation of ideaspace and collect tolls til the end of eternity? They included it so that creative people would be encouraged to create works that would eventually enter the public domain.

eurleif 12y ago
>If that's not the purpose, why even have copyright at all? To encourage creative works. This may or may not lead to expanding the public domain, but those are not equivalent. >These are referenced in the US Constitution itself. The constitution references encouraging creativity. It does not reference expanding the public domain.