We often only get the thing for a limited time period after it is lost forever because copyright has prevented the thing from being archived.
A lot of things that are copyrighted would have also been created anyway, often by multiple people, because there is an actual need for them to exist or an inherent human drive to create them. We have been creating things, both with practical applications or as art, long before we had copyright. And with the ability to effortlessly copy works at effectively no cost we do (or would) have an ever increasing library of them which reduces the need to encourage even more creation than what would happen anyway, especially when the cost of that encouragement is not only excessive but ends up impeding many creative endeavors.
>We often only get the thing for a limited time period after it is lost forever because copyright has prevented the thing from being archived.
That's not inherent to copyright, though copyright does grant the author the power to control distribution of its work. Nevertheless, it all eventually becomes public domain.
>A lot of things that are copyrighted would have also been created anyway, often by multiple people, because there is an actual need for them to exist or an inherent human drive to create them.
Such as?
> And with the ability to effortlessly copy works at effectively no cost we do (or would) have an ever increasing library of them which reduces the need to encourage even more creation than what would happen anyway, especially when the cost of that encouragement is not only excessive but ends up impeding many creative endeavors
That's a lot of words but nothing actual. Do you think you'd see David Lynch movies if there was no copyright? What do you think the world today would be like if there was no copyright? Some sort of magical world where authors create for free, without any regard for the finances required to do so? It's a bit ridiculous.
Claim not supported. You haven't established that absolutely no one else could create the thing. People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain, so having dictatorial power over a thing is not a necessary condition to create it.
> And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there?
I assume a free society should operate with the least duress, because duress is "compulsion by threat or violence; coercion" which actively restricts activity as opposed to merely ignoring or not participating in it.
If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
The last movie I saw was Disney's Frozen which is based on a Hans Christen Andersen story currently in the public domain. It was good, but not "life of the author + 75 years" good.
Well if we had your way, you'd just be reading the public domain book instead.
>If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
Who said delayed? I didn't. The alternative isn't Mulholland drive coming out in 2011 instead of 2001, it's it not being made at all.
And it's trivial to opt out of copyright protection, giving your work up to the public domain. I wonder why more authors don't!
My use of duress was ironic and this conversation is not productive.
After you have owned a car for five years, can I come steal it?
What if I copy it at near zero cost to you or anyone else? It can't be stealing because I didn't deprive you of the car.
The thing, which would have not been created otherwise. Why pretend like you didn't know that?
We often only get the thing for a limited time period after it is lost forever because copyright has prevented the thing from being archived.
A lot of things that are copyrighted would have also been created anyway, often by multiple people, because there is an actual need for them to exist or an inherent human drive to create them. We have been creating things, both with practical applications or as art, long before we had copyright. And with the ability to effortlessly copy works at effectively no cost we do (or would) have an ever increasing library of them which reduces the need to encourage even more creation than what would happen anyway, especially when the cost of that encouragement is not only excessive but ends up impeding many creative endeavors.
>We often only get the thing for a limited time period after it is lost forever because copyright has prevented the thing from being archived.
That's not inherent to copyright, though copyright does grant the author the power to control distribution of its work. Nevertheless, it all eventually becomes public domain.
>A lot of things that are copyrighted would have also been created anyway, often by multiple people, because there is an actual need for them to exist or an inherent human drive to create them.
Such as?
> And with the ability to effortlessly copy works at effectively no cost we do (or would) have an ever increasing library of them which reduces the need to encourage even more creation than what would happen anyway, especially when the cost of that encouragement is not only excessive but ends up impeding many creative endeavors
That's a lot of words but nothing actual. Do you think you'd see David Lynch movies if there was no copyright? What do you think the world today would be like if there was no copyright? Some sort of magical world where authors create for free, without any regard for the finances required to do so? It's a bit ridiculous.
> which would have not been created otherwise
Claim not supported. You haven't established that absolutely no one else could create the thing. People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain, so having dictatorial power over a thing is not a necessary condition to create it.
Your claim isn't supported either.
> People create things all the time under such liberal conditions as public domain
And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there?
What was the last movie you saw?
> And people are free to, even under the duress of copyright. What's the problem there?
I assume a free society should operate with the least duress, because duress is "compulsion by threat or violence; coercion" which actively restricts activity as opposed to merely ignoring or not participating in it.
If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
The last movie I saw was Disney's Frozen which is based on a Hans Christen Andersen story currently in the public domain. It was good, but not "life of the author + 75 years" good.
Well if we had your way, you'd just be reading the public domain book instead.
>If someone would be free to create the thing without copyright duress, it is better even if delayed, because it was done with the least restriction of freedom.
Who said delayed? I didn't. The alternative isn't Mulholland drive coming out in 2011 instead of 2001, it's it not being made at all.
And it's trivial to opt out of copyright protection, giving your work up to the public domain. I wonder why more authors don't!
My use of duress was ironic and this conversation is not productive.