That's not an accurate summation of anti-copyright sentiment.
The idea is that people should be paid for the work that they do and they shouldn't be able to continue getting paid after they've completed the job. e.g. If I employ a builder to build a wall, I would expect to pay them for their time, effort and materials, but when the wall is finished, I don't want to continue paying them and their descendants.
The fundamental idea behind copyright is to provide an extra incentive to get people to create original works and in return, those works end should end up in the public domain. However, with copyright terms being so extreme, many works can disappear before they can enter the public domain which is fundamentally breaking the "contract". If a newspaper doesn't allow archiving to preserve historically interesting documents, then they shouldn't enjoy the benefits of copyright as they won't be fulfilling their side of the deal.
> And how do you reconcile your view with modern software development?
I mainly work with Linux and open source software, and though I'm not a software developer, I'm more than happy to share any BASH scripts that I've written with anyone that wants them.
> Also the “contract” you’re referring to doesn’t seem to be rooted in any law, but rather your opinion.
> The modern concept of copyright originated in Great Britain, in the year 1710, with the Statute of Anne. This Act prescribed a copyright term of fourteen years, and let the author renew for another fourteen years, after which the work went into the public domain. Over the years, additional acts and case law steadily refined the definitions of what could be protected, including derivative works, and the degree of protection given.
> United States copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first U.S. federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790. The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. 40 years later, the initial term was changed to 28 years.
and
> The goal of copyright law, as set forth in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This includes incentivizing the creation of art, literature, architecture, music, and other works of authorship. As with many legal doctrines, the effectiveness of copyright law in achieving its stated purpose is a matter of debate
It’s both things, though. You can’t maintain an archive of content without bypassing the NYT paywall. To me the actual issue is a profit-driven business producing goods of important public value. There’s an inherent contradiction in there that doesn’t seem easy to solve.
These articles not only record history but create history, in part by swaying public opinion. To edit an article years later so that its not what was originally published is a disservice to historians.
Code from big tech definitely sways public opinion just as much or even more so by controlling what is seen and when as well as by who. So you agree then code should also be free?
not the same thing. more accurately, while i rarely have the need to run decades old software, i should have the right to. look at attempts to preserve old games. it's the same story. it should be legal to archive copies of old software. ideally with the source. that doesn't mean that the source should be free now, but it should most definitely be available once the copyright expires.
Ok. You can give away your code now so it can be “preserved” and go into the public domain in 70 years. I prefer to get paid instead since freely available code is not going to be as profitable.
you do not need to give away your code in order to allow it to be preserved. it could be locked somewhere, only to be made public after the copyright expires.
Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes.
Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve.
I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here.
> Code has value over time where as NYT content does not, unless it’s to make a case why one shouldn’t put to much weight in what it publishes.
Code is facts about an organizations business. To the extent factual information is created by the NYT it most heavily skews toward sports scores and weather which is not the NYTs property to preserve.
I don’t have an issue with their paywall but I think the most valuable part about their content after a week or so is to point out how wrong they typically are. My guess is, removing the ability to call BS is the motivating factor here.
This is a good example of what I’m talking about. Tech bros devaluing other professions work, lol.
Obviously they don’t want their stories archived just like most tech employers don’t want their code archived.