Seems it's about time I started getting my head around this issue. What with GPL and Creative Commons and Artistic License it's getting to be a pretty muddled field. (The perl.com Artistic license link is bust as of this writing, you can find a copy here as well as a quick snapshot of what I mean by a muddled field.)
What I recall from research about 8 years ago is that copyright law is intended to increase dissemination of information by allowing creators to earn profits. Note that is not the same as intending the creators (much less non-creating property procurers) to earn profits; the profits are to aid the dissemination, but in modern times the cart has got in front of the horse. I'm looking forward to a deeper read here of Clause 8 of article I of the U.S. 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;
Clearly RIAA and MPAA haven't read this; they seem to think there's something about the fact that they've made a buck which means the government has to help keep them making bucks. But the intent is to further "the Progress of Science and useful Arts." P2P does this; induce does not.
[/ip]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)
In poking around for IP info I finally found, the Public Domain Enhancement Act FAQ, and I'm feeling guilty at not having been aware of it sooner.
While I agree with the idea of enhanceing the public domain, I strongly disagree with some of the main premises as presented in the faq.
andYou have the right to perform a Shakespeare play however you want. You don't need special permission from the heirs of Shakespeare. You don't have the right to perform Porgy and Bess however you want. For that right, you need the permission of the Gerswhin estate.
We believe that it is completely appropriate that a copyright owner have the right to control his or her work for a limited time. But when there is no continuing need or desire to control that work, it should be free for others to build upon however they wish.
We have proposed a tiny fee designed to move unused copyrighted work into the public domain...will help shift works no longer being commercially exploited by anyone into the public domain.
Of course I am cheating, taking the faq statements out of order. But by the criteria stated Shakespeare would be less a candidate for public domain than Gershwin. No, this notion of "no longer being commericallly exploited" won't do. There's a cart and horse issue here. In no small part one reason Shakespeare is part of so many for-profit endeavors, from West Side Story to the DiCapprio/Danes debacle, is that the material is in the public domain.
Setting that argument aside, there's a more fundamental issue...the intent of copyright and patent law, which is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Patent and copyrights in perpetuity stifle creativity by preventing widespread access to former art. It's that simple. Sure, the folks who grab these properties figure to hold them as long as they can, because there's never a good time to let go an asset, particularly one that takes as little care and feeding as a right.
Current IP laws are entirely out of step with the intent of furthering progress, we have instead substituted the furthering of profit. Worse, not even profit for the creators, but profit for the bloated coprorations who ram down our throats one Brittany Spears video after another. These corporations care not for furthering progress, they care about shareholder returns. The effect of distributed guilt that effectively absolves shareholders for the crimes of their corporations is beyond the scope of this wee blog. Suffice to say, we are all guilty. (And I don't own *any* stocks.)
[/ip]
static link
writebacks: 0 (writeback = trackback +/- comment)