![]() To the best of my knowledge, giving creators or their heirs the ability to bar something from being published at all has never really been an explicit goal of copyright protections, and is arguably at odds with its actual intended purposes. Even the Constitution explicitly says that it’s about providing an incentive to create new works. Copyright has always been kind of a kludge-a compromise made to give creators a way to monetize their creations. That said, I don’t think that “keep the exact copyright regime we currently have” is a principle that anyone claims to hold particularly deeply. ![]() ![]() Consider, for example, how Democrats did a total about-face on “no racial discrimination” when their favored demographics started getting the long end of the discrimination stick. Sure, there’s plenty of that going around. People reveal themselves through their preoccupations. After all, how many books are right now out of print, but still under copyright? How many films cannot be easily viewed through legal channels? This content is unavailable for a variety of reasons, but we only see outrage when that reason is anti-bigotry. They object to efforts against historic racism.īut why? If it were merely about preserving cultural artifacts, then they would be just as upset as things getting pulled for other reasons. Thus, it’s not that the right are racists (although surely many are), but they are anti-anti-racism. Instead, they pulled it because of racist portrayals, and in turns the right freaks out. Note, if the publisher had pulled the volumes due to poor sales, or really any other reason, no one would have noticed. However, it’s obviously not about a principled position regarding intellectual property. I don’t actually think it’s about race, at least not directly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |