[rayiner]

Copyright only covers coming someone else’s fictional character. It’s not copyright infringement if you happen to come up with a character that resembles Hermione or whatever.

As to the Dracula example: why should you be able to use the fruits of someone else’s labor for free? There is literally an infinite amount of independent things you can create without using other people’s work.

[darkarmani]

> why should you be able to use the fruits of someone else’s labor for free?

Why not? I like the letter 'i'. Why do you get to use the letter 'i' for free when it is my favorite? Every time you use it without paying me, you deprive me of the potential profits that i could make licensing that usage. Why do you get to benefit from the heat my body gives off?

Anything that has infinite supply is going to have a low price (to free) price without artificial constraints. In this case the artificial monopoly is copyright. There is no scarcity, so gov't "regulates" and "distorts" the market to reward content creators. This is not a natural state.

I'm not against a well-balanced copyright system that actually encourages creation in exchange for a limited time monopoly.

[gnode]

I don't have a problem with copyright covering characters, but with the excessive copyright term. My example of Dracula is that he is regarded by most as a classical character, like Frankenstein or Scrooge, not a modern character to be licensed like a Marvel superhero. Should the works of Shakespeare be under the creative control of his distant descendants?