> it makes no sense to me to tell people who want to be compensated for making something valuable to stop doing it so that we can make whatever remaining works there are public domain
It would be an interesting experiment, but I don't think people would stop putting out original ideas if they were to stop being compensated for it. People produce original ideas and original works of art because that's what they do, not because they hope to become very rich doing so. (And it could be argued that the best works of mankind have been produced before copyright was invented.)
The point of copyright was to prevent authors from starving; I think we're well past that point.
(There's a secondary argument in favor of copyright that's often aired by movie studios and the like, that it costs a lot of money to produce works of art, and that if there were no copyright then there would be no economic rationale to create new things.
I think that argument is flawed in principle ("so what? do we need expensive works of art so badly that we're prepared to alienate our freedom for having them?"), but more interestingly, it's also becoming false in practice: it used to cost a lot of money to produce a music album, or even simply to print a book; it will eventually be cheap to produce a movie.)
My general point is that copyright was an interesting idea that has gone much too far; we're not getting our money's worth and we should push back (i.e., make it much shorter).
> My general point is that copyright was an interesting idea that has gone much too far; we're not getting our money's worth and we should push back (i.e., make it much shorter).
That's a fair point, and one that I agree with, but it is a compromise: if there were no legal protection for "intellectual property", the only people who could afford to produce it would be independently wealthy "amateurs". I'm not sure that that is an optimal state of affairs either.
It would be an interesting experiment, but I don't think people would stop putting out original ideas if they were to stop being compensated for it. People produce original ideas and original works of art because that's what they do, not because they hope to become very rich doing so. (And it could be argued that the best works of mankind have been produced before copyright was invented.)
The point of copyright was to prevent authors from starving; I think we're well past that point.
(There's a secondary argument in favor of copyright that's often aired by movie studios and the like, that it costs a lot of money to produce works of art, and that if there were no copyright then there would be no economic rationale to create new things.
I think that argument is flawed in principle ("so what? do we need expensive works of art so badly that we're prepared to alienate our freedom for having them?"), but more interestingly, it's also becoming false in practice: it used to cost a lot of money to produce a music album, or even simply to print a book; it will eventually be cheap to produce a movie.)
My general point is that copyright was an interesting idea that has gone much too far; we're not getting our money's worth and we should push back (i.e., make it much shorter).