Quote:
Originally Posted by stocktrader23
I was quite clear in what I wrote. Copyright protection did not come about because they thought "Wow, these people need to get rich on their ideas!" it came about to ensure that more works would be released with cash incentives being a trade off they had to accept. Most here talk as if copyright was intended to grant them lifetime ownership of their content because it was theirs and they deserve it but that is not what was originally intended. The reason that attitude is so prevalent is the influence of corporations on our current laws.
|
The situation is for many it has to mean a lifetime copyright for them to remain profitable and to keep people employed. Let's use books as an example.
Let's say when the level of profit has been reached, that was decided to be fair, on
one book copyright was lost and it was deemed in the Public Domain. What about other books in the publishers catalogue that haven't reached that level and may never?
What happens now is the excessive profit from "Harry Potter" novels. Funds the publishing of others. With your thinking Harry Potter would never of got published in the first place, because it's well known in the book publishing world that children's books are not slam dunk successes. This would of happened with the Beatles, King's Speech and many other products that have to be copyrighted for their lifetime. To pay for the gambles that didn't work out.
To ensure we get the creative long shots and not fed pulp mush that's guaranteed to make a profit.
And what are the penalties for someone who, under the idea you propose, for pirating copyrighted products anyway? Because he has more traffic to sell to traffic brokers than the legal distributors of works that are in the Public Domain.