Re: copyright under stress

On 27/05/2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
> >
> > My own view of copyright is not that it is per se antiquated or
> > wrong, but that the movement of it in the last 30 years has been
> > the opposite of what technological change should have led to. For
> > instance, terms should have become shorter, copyright should have
> > covered less material, and notice of what is copyrighted and whom
> > to contact for permission more obvious.
>
> Why, John? Why do you feel that technological change should have
> led to curtailing of copyright protection in both scope and time?
> Do you believe that should have been a logical consequence of
> technological development?
>
> Or do you think that would have been an appropriate response to such
> change and, if so, why?

I'd agree with John on the technological development point; surely as technology advances, the ability to make money from your copyright is increased, therefore a shorter term is needed in order to make a 'fair' remuneration from your work, and therefore the term of protection should be shorter, not longer.

It's a contentious point (and one that I'm sure will attract flame, especially from authors) but one worth considering.

Ewan Kirk
<ewan.j.kirk[_at_]solent.ac.uk> Received on Tue May 30 2000 - 09:30:30 GMT