Oct 072007
 

I know why it happened, but it still strikes me as odd, the fact that the goal­posts kept mov­ing, as it were, with copy­right. And it’s weird no mat­ter wheth­er the copy­right is there to give oth­er people rights to use, copy and modi­fy the work, or rights to the author to pro­tect and profit from their work. In oth­er areas of the law, the gen­er­al rule is that what counts is the law at the time. It’s only illeg­al if it was illeg­al at the time the offence was com­mit­ted, for example (the major excep­tion being crimes against human­ity). Even pat­ents are val­id for a set peri­od of time, and com­pan­ies know how long that will be when they apply for the pat­ent (hence all the phar­ma­ceut­ic­al tricks with minor modi­fic­a­tions that they hope will be just enough to get a new pat­ent on). Only in copy­right, that I’m aware of, has it been the case that the peri­od of valid­ity has been so massively changed and applied ret­ro­act­ively. From 21 years (see His­tory of Copy­right to the death of the author plus 50–75 years, depend­ing on the coun­try you live in and some con­vo­luted depend­en­cies. And then there’s the fam­ous exten­sion by which Mickey Mouse would have been in the pub­lic domain by now, but won’t be for a while yet. 

It just seems odd to me, the fact that copy­right is the excep­tion to the gen­er­al rule. But maybe it just seems odd to me.

/* ]]> */