![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I own these words – FOREVER! Bwah hah hah hah hah!
Mark Helprin* recently wrote an article in the New York Times advocating the perpetual extension of copyright. I'll admit I see this primarily as a fanfic writer (and someone who hasn't decided yet whether to post a Lorax parody on, of all things, copyright, and risk the ire of the Seuss estate). But it's not like I don't have a couple of things of my own out there not covered by a work-for-hire agreement, and hope for more some day. And even if I didn't, I hope as a reader I would understand that writers need and deserve a reward for their labors. I am not anti-copyright, though I quibble with the breadth and length of its brushstroke. But perpetual?
We should not have infinite copyright for the same reason that, after a certain period of time, it is permitted to make generic drugs – because the creator's interest in making a profit from his or her creation must be balanced against society's interest in being able to both eventually make it available to almost everyone and build on it to create the next step(s). If the first man who ever built a mousetrap still owned exclusive rights to the concept, it would be impossible ever to build a better one.
Even physical property rights, which Helprin compares copyright to, are not without limit – hence zoning, hence restrictions on discrimination in housing sales, hence eminent domain.
I would have less of a problem with this idea if it were restricted exclusively to a right to profit from sale of the work in its entirety, especially if it were a set fee and did not contain a right to refuse use. But otherwise the effect is to reduce the communal conversation to a series of solipsistic monologues in perpetuity, with direct engagement from one work to its predecessors less and less possible.
Copyright is already a widening gyre – digital rights management gives end users less and less control over their copies; publishers often refuse to accept new works containing even snippets of existing ones without permission, lest they end in a long and costly legal battle; and references of the sort considered high art when Eliot made them are now called plagiarism even when acknowledged. Not to mention the can of worms that is "derivative works." What about retellings? Do we really want to say Wicked and Grendel should have never happened unless we could get some great grandson to sign off or stretch the word parody until it snaps? What about collages, sampling, mashups?
Already we have a massive disconnect between a technology and culture that makes recombinant art easier and more relevant to the audiences' concerns, and copyright law that makes it harder to do legally for longer and longer. Extending that to infinity might finally bring on the looming copyright crisis; it sure wouldn't solve it.
---
Lawrence Lessig offers a rebuttal in Wiki form
In the comments of Making Light,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
agrumer points out that this should extend backwards as well as forward.
*Helprin's is someone whose political views I rarely agree with, but his Winter's Tale is still one of my favorite books in the world.
We should not have infinite copyright for the same reason that, after a certain period of time, it is permitted to make generic drugs – because the creator's interest in making a profit from his or her creation must be balanced against society's interest in being able to both eventually make it available to almost everyone and build on it to create the next step(s). If the first man who ever built a mousetrap still owned exclusive rights to the concept, it would be impossible ever to build a better one.
Even physical property rights, which Helprin compares copyright to, are not without limit – hence zoning, hence restrictions on discrimination in housing sales, hence eminent domain.
I would have less of a problem with this idea if it were restricted exclusively to a right to profit from sale of the work in its entirety, especially if it were a set fee and did not contain a right to refuse use. But otherwise the effect is to reduce the communal conversation to a series of solipsistic monologues in perpetuity, with direct engagement from one work to its predecessors less and less possible.
Copyright is already a widening gyre – digital rights management gives end users less and less control over their copies; publishers often refuse to accept new works containing even snippets of existing ones without permission, lest they end in a long and costly legal battle; and references of the sort considered high art when Eliot made them are now called plagiarism even when acknowledged. Not to mention the can of worms that is "derivative works." What about retellings? Do we really want to say Wicked and Grendel should have never happened unless we could get some great grandson to sign off or stretch the word parody until it snaps? What about collages, sampling, mashups?
Already we have a massive disconnect between a technology and culture that makes recombinant art easier and more relevant to the audiences' concerns, and copyright law that makes it harder to do legally for longer and longer. Extending that to infinity might finally bring on the looming copyright crisis; it sure wouldn't solve it.
---
Lawrence Lessig offers a rebuttal in Wiki form
In the comments of Making Light,
agrumer points out that this should extend backwards as well as forward.*Helprin's is someone whose political views I rarely agree with, but his Winter's Tale is still one of my favorite books in the world.