Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23
Yeah, I was responding to Paul saying that the purpose of copyright was to "protect the creators of a product from every Tom, Dick and Harry thinking he can "share" his one copy with the world".
The only reason they granted copyright was to keep the flow of creative ideas going by giving people an incentive to release their copyrighted material. They didn't care about someone being able to profit from their work, that was just a side effect that was begrudgingly accepted. We are on the same page about that being the law, always was. I brought it up to show that it wasn't done because they wanted everyone making money on this stuff, they just accepted it.
Anyhow, I see he's already responded more to steer the conversation in yet another direction. I'll just let him spew I suppose.
|
So what motive other than profit do you propose should be used "to keep the flow of creative ideas going by giving people an incentive to release their copyrighted material."?
Would love to have an answer on this.
Maybe a timeline, say 10 years. Or if that's too long 10 months. But that might mean some works would never be created as it takes longer to show a profit.
Maybe a limit on profit. Would it be 100% profit or 1,000% or what?
The side effect that was begrudgingly accepted was the motivation. You sound like a communist. No seriously, your ideas seem to be very left wing. I thought like you until I released that the only reason works of art like Sgt Peppers, Tommy, Dark Side, The Wall and more were ever allowed to be created was. A big music company funding the production because of the incentive of a profit.
Yes ignore me, because coming up with a reply is so hard.
