Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 7689923" data-attributes="member: 40166">You're conflating what is, with what should be. Yes, a candy maker does care that I copied his candy precisely and started making it. As does a furniture maker or clothing maker, neither of which get much intellectual property protection. Why is a dressmaker only protected by his name, whereas an author gets copyright protection?I like to think that making our artists and creative thinkers into criminals is not helping society. A huge number of artists do do fanart or fanfic. A number of great works are adaptations of other works. Certainly some degree of copyright is helping society, but not the keeping works from the 1920s under copyright, and probably not even the 1960s like Star Trek.You confused the two.You conflate malum in se and malum prohibitum. 50% of all American sound films made before 1950 are gone. Lost forever. Because nitrocellulose film catches on fire really easily, and cellulose acetate film, as I said, melts into vinegar. And film archives have explained that they can't find the owners of many of the films in their collections, and can't negotiate with others, meaning that they could preserve the films they hold from those fates (which, since it involves copying, is at best legally questionable), but they can't afford to without the right to show them at exhibitions or produce them on DVD.Heck, even keeping to just fans, there are a number of Doctor Who episodes preserved only in audio versions made by fans who illegally recorded them when they played on TV.How narcissistic is it to ignore the real facts of the loss of the world's film heritage?In other words, yes, great works have come from blatant copying of other's works. Copyright would have taken from us some of Shakespeare's plays, and therefore in terms of artistic value, is not an unquestionable positive.There's no such thing; the history of copyright law starts after printing press was in widespread usage. So of course I'm not advocating that.Change is not always progress; it should not be absurd to say that some law went too far. Moreover, the Internet has brought huge changes to the table. For the first time in history, copyright infringement is a law that interferes with the actions of the average person. Superman fanfic that once would have been seen only among friends can and are now published to a worldwide audience on websites. Singing that once would have been limited to local clubs now hits YouTube. Why can't we ask if the ever-increasing terms of copyright pre-Internet should be rewound so that the wide audience that wants to adapt and show their Internet friends can do so?In 2019, the works of 1923 will hit the public domain in the US. Perhaps there would be more respect for copyright if that were the works of 1968, and people felt that copyright actually was for a limited time.</blockquote>

Verification