[LINK] copyright extension

Kim Holburn kim at holburn.net
Tue Dec 12 10:28:07 AEDT 2006

Interesting take on copyright:


>  Copyright extension: the dead want inspiration too
> 12/8/2006 11:58:34 AM, by Ken Fisher
> Buried in the massive tome of recommendations that is the UK's  
> Gowers Review (previously covered) was one extremely important  
> recommendation, one that touches the very soul of the concept of  
> copyrights. Nate briefly mentioned this earlier in the week, but I  
> think it's worth more attention, partly because of recent  
> (hilarious) developments. I quote from the Review:
>     "Recommendation 4: Policy makers should adopt the principle  
> that the term and scope of protection for IP rights should not be  
> altered retrospectively."
> Why is this so important? Copyright was born to "balance" the  
> public goods of access and education with the private goods of  
> ownership and incentive. When copyright was introduced to the world  
> with the Statute of Anne in 1710, its purpose was defined at the  
> very outset:
>     "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the  
> Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such  
> Copies, during the Times therein mentioned" (emphasis added)
> The question was how to encourage authors to write so that the  
> public can benefit. The solution was simple: give authors a period  
> of limited monopoly over their works, after which they belong to  
> the public. This initial period was 14 to 21 years. You, the  
> theoretical author, are supposed to think, "well, 14 years is good,  
> so maybe I will just write this book!" Or something like that.
> Gowers' recommendation is fundamental to respecting the true  
> purpose of copyright because it acknowledges the point of copyright  
> as an incentive. Changing copyright terms may be fine and dandy,  
> but if an author has already created a work, copyright has already  
> served its primary purpose of providing incentive. Copyright  
> continues to protect said work, of course, but that's how it  
> accomplishes the incentive: a limited period of protection. When  
> viewed in this light, retroactive extensions are non-sense. The  
> "incentive" has already done its work.

Even more interesting considering that the RIAA wants to lower  
royalties to artists:


Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
Ph/F: +61 2 62577881 M: +61 417820641
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
                           -- Lloyd Biggle, Jr. Analog, Apr 1961

More information about the Link mailing list