IssueRaiser

Well Disney is dead, so are you saying that all rights to restrict the use of his copyright works should also have died?

Well Disney is dead, so are you saying that all rights to restrict the use of his copyright works should also have died? The reason others are owed rights is that copyright, as with patents, is a contract between the state and the creator/inventor. Part of the deal is that creators get copyright protection in return for the eventual entry of the work in to the public domain - they pay off the demos with that promise. State doesn't owe creators of works protection naturally. If creators want to not have a limited right to exclusive use they should be allowed to give that up and then the state should exclude itself from any actions against people who copy that work. To recapitulate: if you don't want to 'buy' copyright protection with eventual movement of your work in to the public domain then you can instead have that work freely copyable - without tort - based on the ability of anyone who sees/uses it. Without ready movement of works in to the public domain the public are being ripped off, the contract is broken and the public then should consider those works copyable without the possibility of a claim of tort.

Posted by pbhjpbhj on Feb 5, 2015, 4:37 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.8,000 issues0 comments

reliability (Other)

Well Disney is dead, so are you saying that all rights to restrict the use of his copyright works should also have died?

pbhjpbhjFeb 5, 2015, 4:37 PM

Well Disney is dead, so are you saying that all rights to restrict the use of his copyright works should also have died? The reason others are owed rights is that copyright, as with patents, is a contract between the state and the creator/inventor. Part of the deal is that creators get copyright protection in return for the eventual entry of the work in to the public domain - they pay off the demos with that promise. State doesn't owe creators of works protection naturally. If creators want to not have a limited right to exclusive use they should be allowed to give that up and then the state should exclude itself from any actions against people who copy that work. To recapitulate: if you don't want to 'buy' copyright protection with eventual movement of your work in to the public domain then you can instead have that work freely copyable - without tort - based on the ability of anyone who sees/uses it. Without ready movement of works in to the public domain the public are being ripped off, the contract is broken and the public then should consider those works copyable without the possibility of a claim of tort.

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue