Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gban007" data-source="post: 9885979" data-attributes="member: 56488">I think there are two competing moral imperatives myself- the moral imperative for knowledge etc to be shared to the wider public, and the moral imperative for a creator to be compensated for their work.With the nature of our economic set up, giving them a monopoly period to be able to control the sale of their goods seems to be main way to achieve this, but I don't think it needs to be only way.  Much as some older creators as such may have had patrons making sure they were compensated, it feels there could be other ways to achieve outcome, that they are compensated for time/ effort / talent / practice required to output a work (over and above material costs).If we are willing to accept (and you may not) paying actors and athletes millions of dollars for what they do, doesn't seem far fetched to think can pay some authors millions as well to produce works that are then public domain.This all side steps whether owning the work they create is a natural right, but I have found it interesting looking at history of copyright, and this idea of a perpetual common law copyright that may have existed before copy right laws placed time limits on it.Outside of all this is the issues around the likes of Disney doing their best to lengthen copyright periods, which feels less like trying to go for fair compensation, and more just to boost corporate profits.</blockquote>