Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The Half-life of Ideas
Great op-ed on the transfer of intellectual property rights. The basic point is that after a writer dies, liberating their work into the public domain, still results in an ensuing cost for consumption. (Notably the profits shift in the supply chain from the creator to the service provider...more on that later.)
Project Gutenberg being the exception (Love PG but reading 'books' in text/notepad format is so
painful- another 'cost' for consumption!).
I think you screwed up the link. The op-ed you link to attempts to argue for infinite copyright extension with a grab-bag of ontological proofs by comparison with physical property.
In other words, it's a poorly-reasoned piece of hackery that contributes nothing to the debate.
A wiki page explaining the errors in the article has been started:
Hopefully in the future the NYT will require writers wishing to discuss copyright to develop a basic grasp of the subject rather than so embarrassing themselves in print.
I think Kashif was kidding ;-)
The principle is the liberty of market access and the exception is the monopoly (like IP rights).
Because the author brings his creation to the collectivity, the law gives him an exclusive right for a limited period. In other words the collectivity GIVE you this temporary protection and of course you donâ€™t buy it. Thatâ€™s the deal.
Nothing comparable when you buy a house.
Much of the rest is snivelling.
Post a Comment