"Copyright was meant to encourage culture, not restrict it."

Stopped reading there. Copyright is intended to protect the work of those who produce. To be honest, I expect drivel from the ft.

Totally agree ghost. What a stupid article.

stupid it may be, but maybe we should talk abut whether or not copyrights restrict culture.

Ghost, that's not universally true. Continental Europe does tend to have a "moral rights" ideological foundation for copyright, but the U.S. extends the copyright monopoly in order to incentivize creative activity.

Why do you expect drivel from the Financial Times, Ghost? Although, I agree... this article is all over the place and doesn't make much sense.

Actually, copyright was meant to encourage culture, not to protect the work of those who produce. Specifically, it was meant to encourage people to produce culture, but then allow it to be free. It is only since about the 1920's or so, that it has become about protecting the work and those who produce that work.

From the Constitution:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

To promote the progress of(...) useful arts. Copyright is horrible as it is currently implemented. Chairs, lamps, anything written ever.

Even in the Statute of Anne, which is kind of the first modern copyright law(at least per wikipedia), it says to encourage learned men to write books. See as follows:

"8 Anne, c. 19 (1710)

An act for the encouragement of learning, by vesting the copies of printed books in the authors or purchasers of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.

I. Whereas printers, booksellers, and other persons have of late frequently taken the liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing, or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published, books and other writings, without the consent of the authors or proprietors of such books and writings, to their very great detriment, and too often to the ruin of them and their families: for preventing therefore such practices for the future, and for the encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful books; may it please your Majesty, that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same; "

Copyright law has been changed from encouraging creation, to being a hinder to it and to the spread of knowledge. It is generally accepted that science builds upon science. There are arguments that culture builds upon culture as well. If this is true, we have locked down a lot of what we would be building upon. Many books build upon Shakespeare. Why do we want to make sure they can't build upon Tolkien?

Both the copyright and patent system have been greatly abused in the last score of years. The patent system has been turned into a way to discourage inventions and to allow large corporations to muscle out emerging competitors. We put in place the DMCA and things like this to control works, even after they are sold. Copyrights have become about control and money. That is not what they were intended to be for.

"To promote the progress of(...) useful arts. Copyright is horrible as it is currently implemented. Chairs, lamps, anything written ever."

Actually, "useful arts" refers to inventions, and thus patent law. "Science" refers to the work covered by copyright.

Ummm protecting those who produce IS promoting culture.

by restricting use?

Tragedy of the commons much? Restricting use can encourage use.

tragedy of the commons doesnt really apply. ideas arnt fish in a pond.

No, it allows 'learned men' to make books and make a living from this activity, and thus allow them become professionals specialising in the field of making books.

That said copyright doesn't stop me from giving a book (which i have finished) away, and that argueably reduces the income of authors, but also increases the value of their work to culture by spreading it more.

Also I see no reason to extend copyright protections beyond a) the life of the author
or b) 10 years, whichever is shorter.

does the Tragedy of commons apply to youtube? Common videos are generally of lower quality, meanwhile abundant creation by a larger community allows much greater diversity - which is inherently good.

"tragedy of the commons doesnt really apply. ideas arnt fish in a pond."

Not having exclusive use of the property disincentivizes any investment in improving and distributing that property. Tragedy of the commons applies if you put any thought into this at all :/

"Also I see no reason to extend copyright protections beyond a) the life of the author
or b) 10 years, whichever is shorter."

Let me see your cost/benefit numbers on how much distributors are willing to sink in content that's copyrighted for 10 years at the most. Because you have those, right? You must.

"diversity - which is inherently good."

LOL the cant of our times!

http://www.healinghealthcareassoc.org/documents/abundance-vs-scarcity.pdf

this is a rather biased description of abundance vs scarcity.
I think a general idea being that abundance enoucrages collaboration - communist mentality - by taking away the fear that someone will steal your ideas. (of course this isn't exactly true)

In a time when the number of created books was small, and authors scarce, protecting their income from fraud makes a lot of sense. That time is not now.

Removing theft from the list of offenses in the criminal law would also remove fear that things would be stolen. <_<

Now that billions are sunk into promoting copyrighted material, it makes no sense to protect that material! Well, now that billions are at risk, why protect those billions

why indeed
(@JU#@!I#

@Acosmist: I see no reason to need a distributor to sink anything into works. You may find a new technology capable of distributing electronic works (which can be printd at source) available to a majority of the 'developed' world for a marginal cost.

It even has companies who specialize in searching the information so individuals/customers can find what they want. look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Tragedy of the commons is people taking resources because they think they are too small to make an impact. "I cant possibly take enough fish to make a difference to the pond" or "I cant possibly cut down enough trees to make a difference to the forest" the tragedy is when everyone thinks that, and alot of people DO make a difference. how does that apply to say, harry potter, or the music of hank williams? Ideas are not a finite resource that can be taken.

also, are ou suggesting tat diversity is not a good thing?

"Now that billions are sunk into promoting copyrighted material, it makes no sense to protect that material!"

if all current copyrights were due to expire in 10 years time i'm sure that would give most investors about 9 years 364 days to adjust. Which they have been doing in the music industry in more recent years anyway.

"It is only since about the 1920's or so, that it has become about protecting the work and those who produce that work."

Right, your point being? We have accepted the morality that one's creative work is one's own. You cannot begin to talk about copyright being to protect culture when that hasn't been its function for over 80 years.

"Many books build upon Shakespeare. Why do we want to make sure they can't build upon Tolkien?"

You can "build upon Tolkien" without copying the words he uses.

"Ummm protecting those who produce IS promoting culture." "by restricting use?"

By encouraging production.

"Why do you expect drivel from the Financial Times, Ghost?"

Because I've read it. For instance I picked an opinion article at random just now, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9c2db88c-c3fc-11de-8de6-00144feab49a.html

"was that misguided monetary contraction by the authorities was largely to blame [for the great depression]."

Fantastic theory. Unfortunately, Hoover increased government spending during his presidency.

"@Acosmist: I see no reason to need a distributor to sink anything into works."

Then you don't know what words mean. Where is this costless distribution network? Where the costless marketing? Where the costless production facilities?

"You may find a new technology capable of distributing electronic works (which can be printd at source) available to a majority of the 'developed' world for a marginal cost."

What's the marginal cost of the first product?

"It even has companies who specialize in searching the information so individuals/customers can find what they want. look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet"

Man, if one thing has no costs, it's the internet! No massive investment building infrastructure to homes. No massive investment developing the technologies to process information on computers and transmit them. Nope! Costless. All costless. And electricity! Free!

"Tragedy of the commons is people taking resources because they think they are too small to make an impact. "I cant possibly take enough fish to make a difference to the pond" or "I cant possibly cut down enough trees to make a difference to the forest" the tragedy is when everyone thinks that, and alot of people DO make a difference. how does that apply to say, harry potter, or the music of hank williams? Ideas are not a finite resource that can be taken."

But when everyone copies music for free, nothing is received by the musician. Who would then both to produce music?

and we were talking about the benifits to society, not the strategies which have been used in the past and are now failing, mainly becuase a large number of people (the customers) are not respecting this out-dated flawed strategy.

still can't find the abundance vs scarcity link i've been looking for...

"Tragedy of the commons is people taking resources because they think they are too small to make an impact."

If Hardin is too hard, read Locke? I don't know what more to do here. That the lack of an exclusive stake in the fruits of labor will fail to incentivize useful improvements was a large part of the tragedy of the commons. Sorry!

"also, are ou suggesting tat diversity is not a good thing?"

It is CERTAINLY not an inherently good thing! How could it be? How could a mere difference be INHERENTLY good? Come on :/

"if all current copyrights were due to expire in 10 years time i'm sure that would give most investors about 9 years 364 days to adjust."

A taking of property would give people time to adjust! OK, but then what? You've taken their property. Why is stealing so cool with you?

"Which they have been doing in the music industry in more recent years anyway."

what

"and we were talking about the benifits to society"

Two of us are! The rest of you are...being awful.