An interpretation of copyright law.
Perhaps it is time to re-consider the effect and consequence of copyright law.
It is
my understanding that copyright law was originally instituted to
protect the rights of people that made a substantial effort to create
works of art. By insuring the rights of the people that created the
original works, it was intended to encourage the additional creation
of unique art. By limiting the duration of the copyright protection,
the interests of the public are also protected.
Currently, the
copyright has been corrupted to create legal rights for people that
have had very little or nothing, to do with the creation of
independent works of art. In addition to this, the duration of the
copyright protection has been extended to the point where the public
interest in the fair use of protected art has been severely
damaged.
The definition of the term “works of art”
has been corrupted to include the mechanical (electronic)
reproduction of these various “works of art”. This
definition has also been streched to the point where sets of binary
instructions that are used to operate electronic hardware are
considered “works of art”. I for one find it difficult
to comprehend how a set of binary instructions can be construed to be
a “work of art”.
It is arguable that mechanical
(electronic) reproductions of various performances of individual
music or theatrical productions performed for compensation, are not
unique works of art worthy of copyright protection. In this context
various works performed for compensation such as construction,
manufacturing, or service work are not considered art. It would be
possible to use mechanical (electronic) means to record the process
involved in these various works. It would appear that the one
defining difference between the “work of art” and the non
“works of art”, would be that one cannot readily market
recordings of various non “works of art”.
It is
also arguable that by setting a arbitrary price for a “work of
art” it would appear that there is industry wide collusion in
the marketing of musical “works of art”. It would appear
given that the actual cost of production related to individual
performances is minimal, the lack of response to market pressures can
only be attributed to governmental influences.
I would like to
assert that the protection of software through the use of so called
“shrink wrap agreements” is at the very best
reprehensible. Once the consumer has purchased the product, what
alternative does the consumer have other than to approve the
agreement, which is extremely detailed and often leads to the
customer ceding many if not all of their rights. In addition to
this, the actual cost of production related to individual products is
minimal, while the fees charged remain artificially high due to a
lack of competition. Once again, the continuing lack of response to
market pressures can only be attributed to governmental
influences.
The individual software manufacturer's have been
protected in the extreme by the inaction of government. It would
appear that most, if not all, of their products, have been created
either through works created through commissions originating in some
form of government, or if not government supported, have originated
through the public domain.
Copyright law is essential in
protecting the rights of individuals that create original art. This
protection should and must be protected for a reasonable length of
time. This protection should be accorded in proportion to the effort
expended in creating the “work of art'. That is, if one works
a substantial portion of ones life to perfect the “work of
art”, a long period of protection is appropriate. But, if one
spends a very short portion of ones existence, a short period is
appropriate.
It is not appropriate to reward pepople that have expended minimal or no effort in the creation of the “work of art” with protections for extended periods of time!