[LINK] Downer on FTA copyright changes

[Deus Ex Machina]

rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au [rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au] wrote:
> Vic,
> >
> We're talking about "after the death" of the author (in terms of books, 
> for example). Long expiry doesn't particularly benefit (say) Charles 
> Dickens: he's dead.

but those rights have been passed down to his heirs, presumeably,
just like a plot of land is passed down. noone suggests that
windsor castle is no longer of value to the queens mother and therefor
should be returned to the public.

if IP still has value, in the sense that someone is prepared to pay for it, then
surely whoever holds the rights should be entitled to get the value for them.

> >why should there be any with intelectual property?
> >
> When you buy property - say a hammer - you're not bound by an indefinite 
> obligation to the person who made the hammer.
> 
> We're not talking about something that the author grants to each 
> individual reader under license.

I think you are. each individual reader is effectively granted a licence
under law  by the IP holder, (even if it isnt the creator) for
access provided they respect the copyright. what the law does is
reduce the transaction cost of agreeing to the copyright by
standardising it into an implicity form.

>We're talking about a law enacted in a 
> democratic society. If someone proposes a change to that law, there's 
> nothing "subversive" (do we really need the cold warrior terminology?) 
> about resisting that change.

Ill tell you what truncating the life of IP rights does, is that it
raises the cost in the short term. by removing the death sentence on
those rights you lower the interim cost of access.

society would be better off, imo, if IP right holders werent forced
to extra value within a finite time frame for IP.

Vic