|
Perpetual copyright can refer to a copyright without a finite term, or to a copyright whose finite term is perpetually extended. Perpetual copyright in the former sense is highly uncommon, as the current laws of all countries with copyright statutes set a standard limit on the duration, based either on the date of creation/publication, or on the date of the creator's death. (See List of countries' copyright lengths.) Exceptions have sometimes been made, however, for unpublished works. Usually, special legislation is required, granting a perpetual copyright to a specific work. In many countries, moral rights, which may be covered under the copyright law, can last perpetually. == Copyright philosophy == The basic philosophical argument employed by proponents of perpetual copyright presupposes that intellectual property ownership rights are analogous to other property rights such as those associated with material goods. Proponents such as Samuel Clemens〔"Remarks of Samuel Langhorne Clemens Before the Congressional Joint Committee on Patents (December 1906)." Quoted in LaForge, William N. (2010). ''Testifying Before Congress.'' p. 199. TheCapitol.Net. ISBN 9781587331725. Clemens stated in testimony before Congress, "So if I could have convinced that gentleman that a book which does consist solely of ideas, from the base to the summit, then that would have been the best argument in the world that it is property, like any other property, and should not be put under the ban of any restriction, but that it should be the property of that man and his heirs forever and ever, just as a butcher shop would be, or--I don't care--anything, I don't care what it is. It all has the same basis. The law should recognize the right of perpetuity in this and every other kind of property."〕 and Jack Valenti〔 Valenti stated before a congressional committee that "Creative property owners must be accorded the same rights and protection resident in all other property owners in the nation."〕 have stated that owners of intellectual property should have the same perpetual right to retain and bequeath this property to their descendants that owners of material goods already possess. Jonathan Zittrain, a faculty co-director at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, illustrated this argument using the analogy: "() makes no sense to imagine somebody after a certain time coming in and taking your rug or your chair and saying 'Sorry, your ownership expired.'"〔Wentworth, Donna. ("Mickey Rattles the Bars: the Supreme Court Hearing of Eldred v. Ashcroft" ), Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard, 9 October 2002. Retrieved on 7 January 2012.〕 In an op-ed published in ''The New York Times'', author Mark Helprin argues that it is unjust for a government to strip copyright holders of their exclusive rights after a set period of time.〔Helprin, Mark. ("A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright?" ), ''The New York Times'', New York, 20 May 2007. Retrieved on 7 January 2012.〕 He also writes that copyright expiration transfers wealth from private copyright holders to corporations: :"'Freeing' a literary work into the public domain is less a public benefit than a transfer of wealth from the families of American writers to the executives and stockholders of various businesses who will continue to profit from, for example, ''The Garden Party'', while the descendants of Katherine Mansfield will not."〔 Calls for perpetual copyright have been widely criticized. Lawrence Lessig organized a community response to Helprin's editorial.〔Lessig, Lawrence. ("Against Perpetual Copyright" ), The Lessig Wiki. Retrieved on 7 January 2012.〕 Public Knowledge issued a response which argued that copyright expiration ultimately provides a net benefit to society.〔Siy, Sherwin. ("Why Copyrights Must Expire: a reply to Mark Helprin" ), Public Knowledge, 21 May 2007. Retrieved on 7 January 2012.〕 It distinguishes intellectual property rights from those associated with material goods; the latter "are scarce and rivalrous: () cannot be created anew, and only a limited number of people can occupy and use a space at any one time. Copyrighted works are neither scarce nor rivalrous: books are created anew, by specific authors, and can be read by five million people as easily as by five dozen, depriving none of them, nor the author, of the ability to use the work."〔 Critics state that copyright expiration does not deprive a creator's heirs of the right to continue to appreciate and use the works of that creator as though a government had legally confiscated their physical possessions after a set period of time. Society as a whole is granted the same right to appreciate and exploit the property that once was under the exclusive control of a single family or corporate entity. This wider potential for the creative exploitation of works formerly under the exclusive control of a copyright owner promotes learning.〔Mitchell QC, Iain G (2009) ('Back to the Future: Hinton v Donaldson, Wood and Meurose (Court of Session, Scotland, 28 July 1773)' ), ''International Free and Open Source Software Law Review'', 1(2), 111 – 122. The British judge Lord Kames wrote that "...if the monopoly of (printing ) was to be perpetual, it would be a sad case for learned men, and for the interest of learning in general: it would enhance the price of books far beyond the reach of ordinary readers."〕 Public Knowledge and other critics wrote that existing copyright terms already provide more than sufficient compensation for creators of intellectual property. It has also been argued that copyright should not become a welfare system used to benefit remote descendants who happen to come into possession of a valuable copyright through the lottery of birth, and that society is a "quite important heir" to copyrighted works.〔Desai, Deven R., Copyright's Hidden Assumption: A Critical Analysis of the Foundations of Descendible Copyright (27 April 2009). Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper No. 1353746. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1353746〕 Critics of perpetual copyright also point out that creative activity often involves the creation of derivative works that recast or build upon previous material. If this prior material were perpetually copyrighted, their respective copyright holders would have the indefinite right to license their intellectual property or deny its use as they see fit. Many new derivative works could not be produced if the interested parties were denied permission or could not afford the licensing fees. Moreover, the longer copyright persists, the more copyrighted material falls into the category of orphan works.〔Varian, Hal R., Copyright Term Extension and Orphan Works (December 2006). Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 15, Issue 6, pp. 965-980, 2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1116430 or 〕 Anyone seeking to create derivative works based upon orphan works faces the risk of copyright infringement if the copyright holders were to come forward at some later time to enforce their rights. Perpetual copyright would create a significant disincentive to the creation of new literary or artistic works which build upon older material. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Perpetual copyright」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|