scuzzmonkey wrote:to reward the creator with a limited time period of exclusivity over the product.
personally i don't see attribution to be part of copyright, but something that would continue ad infinitum.
robharris wrote:I would say "commercial exclusivity".
VJ wrote:robharris wrote:I would say "commercial exclusivity".
So you wouldn't protect someone who released their work CC-BY-NC with copyright then?
I personally don't believe that copyright should be tied to commerce. Personally, I'm an amateur author, I've never released anything I've writer, because frankly, it's rubbish. But should I one day wish to release my work, I would do it for the reward of having my name tied to it, not for the money. IMO copyright states that this is my work to do with as I please - not yours. Of course it will become yours once it enters the public domain.
philward wrote:Therefore the purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest.
Any notion of rewarding the creator is a side effect of copyright law, and is not the main purpose.
philward wrote:I'd like to take this back to the initial question. Copyright is a feature of law. In a democratic society we are governed through our consent. Those who govern us are elected by us to serve us and our interests.
Therefore the purpose of copyright law is to serve the public interest.
philward wrote:Any notion of rewarding the creator is a side effect of copyright law, and is not the main purpose. The notion of rewarding creators has been the driving force behind copyright extensions in the past. These extensions completely ignore the main reasons for any law; the public interest.
samgower wrote:I disagree that rewarding the creator is a side effect -- rather there is a dual purpose. It's about striking a balance between the right for someone to be rewarded for their work and the right for the rest of the world to benefit from their work. Both of these things are equally valid reasons for copyright to exist.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest