Quote:
Originally posted by FleaCircus
First, in the US, there is no "infinite duration copyright." Works copyrighted by an individual are protected for the life of the author plus 70 years, works copyrighted by a company are protected for 120 years. A long time, but finite.
|
For the last 60-odd years, every time copywrite has been in danger of running out of time, they have extended it by another 20 years.
While at any time, copywrite is finite in duration, if you extend it by 20 years every 20 years (retroactively), copywrite is for all intents and purposes, infinite.
Imagine if you where in jail for 1 year, but every year they could extend your jail sentance by a year. Imagine if they had been doing this for the last 60 years. Would you call that a limited sentance?
(The supreme court considers it to be a limited sentance: they covered this issue relatively recently, when the last "extend copywrite for 20 years and keep mickey mouse out of the public domain!" law was passed.)
Quote:
|
Second, there's a difference between the protection of intellectual property, as in copyrights, and censorship. Copyright allows the creator of a work to control how and when and where it's disseminated. Censorship means that the government has that power.
|
The government enforces the right for a corperation to deny you the right to say something. The source of the power of copywrite lies in the hands of the government. Hence, pedantically, copywrite enforcement is a form of censorship.
This is why there is a balance between "freedom of speech" and "the right to determine who can publish a work". Both are constitutional rights, and they oppose one another in practice.
And I was being pedantic, but copywrite, trademarks and, with the insane patents being passed nowadays, patents, are indeed a forms of censorship. My speech rights are limited by the trademarks and copywrites of others, and the government can criminally prosecute me if I violate them. (as well as enforce civil judgements against me)