The moderator’s opening remarks: Copyright strangles creativity. Copyright rewards originality. It is a nuisance to the public that unduly enriches a few people. It is the backbone of our knowledge economy that fuels progress. Hate it, love it, break it, protect it; few people lack strong opinions about copyright and its place in society.Copyright is just that — the right to make copies. Prior to the printing press there was no such thing. The act of duplication was so labour-intensive and imperfect that it was tolerated. After Gutenberg’s technology made disseminating ideas easier and a better business, the act of publishing eventually became a matter of royal privilege (as much to control content as raise income). Books were expensive and quality was poor.The introduction of copyright law 300 years ago was designed to liberate literary works by limiting the term of exclusivity before they entered the public domain for anyone to reproduce. Copyright was part of the march of capitalism and democracy against the power of monopolies and monarchies. It freed up knowledge and gave authors rights over their intellectual labour.How things change. Today the system is regarded by many as a mechanism to unfairly restrict content in order to line the pockets of a few. Copyright’s scope, duration and strength have expanded, even as new digital technologies have made it easier than ever for new works to be created. Does copyright still serve the public? Does it do more harm than good?
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/310
Leave a Reply