Categories
Uncategorized

Times copyright counter-argument

David Rowan writes in today’s Times Copyright wrongs: we can’t let the music industry suits stifle creativity

The essayist and historian Thomas Babington Macaulay understood the perils when a similar battle to extend copyright was being waged in 1841. Amid calls to stretch the protection to 60 years after death, Macaulay saw no public benefit from a monopoly lasting longer than 42 years or life. “Are we free to legislate for the public good, or are we not?” he asked in the House of Commons. “Is this a question of expediency, or is it a question of right? An advantage that is to be enjoyed more than half a century after we are dead, by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive at all to action.” Many valuable works, he argued, would be suppressed — and publishers treated with such contempt that the reading public would happily turn to “piratical booksellers”.

A 20-year patent limit forces other industries to innovate, so why should the innately risk-averse record labels need any more than a 50-year monopoly? If Mr Purnell truly wants to foster creativity, he ought to broaden his musical tastes.

It is in my opinion a well argued case that Mr. Rowan makes for not extending copyright if the goal is to foster further creativity.

Tags:

By Matt Wharton

Matt Wharton is a dad, vlogger and IT Infrastructure Consultant. He was also in a former life a cinema manager.

Blogging here and at mattwharton.co.uk

Watch our family's vlog at YouTube

Follow me on Twitter