Is True Copy­right Reform a Prac­ti­cal Propo­si­tion?

The problem is compoun­ded when the prin­ciples one applies to indi­vi­dual author or artist then get trans­fer­red to the so-called neigh­bou­ring rights. Why is the making of a film trea­ted like the writing of a book, when in reality it has more in common with buil­ding an aero­plane?

Ça fait mal là où ça touche, même si le réali­sa­teur a certai­ne­ment une vraie créa­tion intel­lec­tuelle dans le proces­sus.

Why is an actor’s perfor­mance on stage worthy of protec­tion for 50 years, but an athle­te’s perfor­mance on the track is not worthy of any exploi­ta­tion rights, despite the fact that the latter’s endea­vours at an inter­na­tio­nal level like the Olym­pics proba­bly have equal or increa­sed econo­mic value?

Mis à part la défi­ni­tion légale du droit d’au­teur, qui s’in­té­resse aux œuvres de l’es­prit, j’ai effec­ti­ve­ment du mal à mora­le­ment faire la diffé­rence.

The US approach of giving a fixed term to mate­rial crea­ted under work-for-hire condi­tions is much more prac­ti­cal and fairer, although the actual term applied in the USA (95 years follo­wing publi­ca­tion or 120 years after crea­tion) is absurdly exces­sive.

Sur The 1709 blog, avec plein de choses à lire, en y ajou­tant son propre recul et son propre filtre critique.