<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Rick Falkvinge (Piratpartiet) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rick@piratpartiet.se">rick@piratpartiet.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> So I think, we have to find a balance between free access for everbody<br>
> to everything and the author's right. Here we are always taking about<br>
> consumers rights. What rights do we want to grant to authors?<br>
><br>
</div>Here is where you walk astray.<br>
<br>
The balance of copyright is not, and was never, between an author's<br>
right and something else. Never. Ever.<br>
<br>
Copyright is a balance between the public's interest in having access to<br>
culture, and the SAME PUBLIC's interest in having new works created. The<br>
purpose of copyright is to culturally maximize society. (This is even<br>
written explicitly in the US Constitution, which words the purpose of<br>
copyright as "...to promote the progress of science and the useful<br>
arts...".)<br>
<br>
The MEANS of doing so has been to grant a limited monopoly to the author<br>
or composer, a monopoly which has been sold to a publisher or other<br>
parasitic middleman.<br>
<br>
Overall, the theory that copyright is needed as an incentive to create<br>
has been thoroughly debunked in the last 10 years of debate, as<br>
evidenced by, say, Wikipedia and GNU/Linux, not to mention the fact that<br>
90% of music on P2P networks is unsigned. Or look at the millions of<br>
photos on Flickr where people have denounced their ALREADY-AWARDED<br>
monopoly. People create not because of copyright, but despite copyright.<br>
<br>
The only valid defense left for the monopoly is to protect heavy<br>
investments in culture that otherwise wouldn't have happened. Those<br>
three last words are key: any monopoly granted to an effect in society<br>
that would have occurred anyway becomes a hinder for creativity and/or<br>
innovation down the road, so the important thing here is to see what<br>
wouldn't be invested in if it were not for copyright.<br>
<br>
Multimillion dollar movies out of Hollywood and computer games come to mind.<br>
<br>
So the next question would be, when those investment decisions are made,<br>
what are their ROI horizons? At what time from publication is further<br>
copyright irrelevant to their decision?<br>
<br>
It turns out that most investments are calculating for an ROI of less<br>
than a year. Five years of <b>commercial </b>copyright is therefore actually<br>
overly generous to rightsholders, but I believe it is a decent stake in<br>
the ground.<br>
<br>
For more elaboration, see my recent open letter to the music industry, here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://english.rickfalkvinge.se/2009/10/20/open-letter-to-the-music-industry/" target="_blank">http://english.rickfalkvinge.se/2009/10/20/open-letter-to-the-music-industry/</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>And, of course, most non-profit uses of copyrighted material should be unregulated. Included copying.<br></div></div><br>