|
|
Thursday, June 15th, 2006
|
3:31p
ай, молодцы.
Falkvinge: Our goal is to reduce copyright substantially in both coverage and time. First of all, when copyright was created, there was no such thing as noncommercial copying. We want to bring it back to cover copying on commercial grounds only -- the copyright monopoly will not cover noncommercial activities at all, nor does it cover anything else than the original exact copy. For example, you would be free to sample from a piece of music and release it as a new work.
Second, the protection term today is ludicrous. Copyright is a monopoly given to the creator as an incentive to create more culture. So why, then, does the monopoly last seventy years after the creator's own death? He or she is very unlikely to create more culture after his or her own demise. If you look at the industry, any investment made is usually calculated to have paid itself within a few years, say five years. We believe this is a reasonable term. That would mean that any music, movie, etc, would have five years of monopolized sales under copyright before it becomes a free-for-all, which is more than sufficient to regain any investment.
Overall, today's copyright does not strike a balance between the creator's interest in regaining an investment on one hand, and society's interest in creation of culture on the other. The law is totally one-sided towards the creator's interests, preventing the spread of culture.
(3 comments |comment on this)
|
3:31p
ай, молодцы.
Falkvinge: Our goal is to reduce copyright substantially in both coverage and time. First of all, when copyright was created, there was no such thing as noncommercial copying. We want to bring it back to cover copying on commercial grounds only -- the copyright monopoly will not cover noncommercial activities at all, nor does it cover anything else than the original exact copy. For example, you would be free to sample from a piece of music and release it as a new work.
Second, the protection term today is ludicrous. Copyright is a monopoly given to the creator as an incentive to create more culture. So why, then, does the monopoly last seventy years after the creator's own death? He or she is very unlikely to create more culture after his or her own demise. If you look at the industry, any investment made is usually calculated to have paid itself within a few years, say five years. We believe this is a reasonable term. That would mean that any music, movie, etc, would have five years of monopolized sales under copyright before it becomes a free-for-all, which is more than sufficient to regain any investment.
Overall, today's copyright does not strike a balance between the creator's interest in regaining an investment on one hand, and society's interest in creation of culture on the other. The law is totally one-sided towards the creator's interests, preventing the spread of culture.
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|