Originally Posted by iscariot
I dont see why any form of media should become free after a period of time.
If I spend time and money working to write a book (for example a classic like War & Peace) why should I stop making money from that book in 4 years time?
That income is still relevent to me and allows me to continue working on the book taht Im writing now. If I didnt have that revnue strream then I would need to have a 9-5 job and would not be able to deliver the next classic work thats in my head and conusmers miss out on the pleasure of reading it because people feel that they deserve things for free.
What's your take on patents? It's kind of the same situation there. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, create an amazing drug. But they know that they only have 14 years to recover their expenses and make a profit before any other company can copy their formula and make a corresponding "generic". The reason for this is public benefit - the 14 years allows companies to still generate enough revenues to continue spending billions on research (which is what we want), but the general public eventually gets the medicines available at very low costs in the form of generics.
I'm not sure that the same way of thinking could/should apply to copyright law, since copyrights generally apply to things that don't make near as much money, and are mostly protecting the individual. But, it is an interesting theory to think about. Maybe it should?