Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Or maybe unlimited protection would encourage even greater innovation. People would have to find an even better way of doing things, which generally seems to be the case anyway.
I don't really know what is best morally. From here, I think there's a good argument for both sides. I definitely can see your point though, but on the other hand, I don't think other people should be able to profit from someone else's idea just because they're dead or a specified period of time has elapsed.
|
It's not a matter of profit, it's a matter of government interference. In a purely libertarian society, the creator would only have the advantage of being first. Copyright is a government shelter to allow a limited (and the Constitution uses that word) time to exclusively profit from a work. In most cases, the 'limit' is two generations. This is more than enough time to profit from a work.
If anyone thinks a 100+ years is too short a time, they're just being greedy.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!
I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. --
Barack Hussein Obama