| Just because copying is easy compared to development does not neccesary lend to the credence that copyright must exists.(Originally I stated that development alway cost more than copying. Apperantly that is false by a few counterexample such as Soviet's reverse engineering of the b-29 bomber) For example, a programmer may spend weeks writing a particular feature. These day, it only take a git clone for somebody to make a few new features and called it a competing software project to the original. With clever marketing, he might be able to overtake the original project. Obviously that often does not happen in reality, as the original project keep some of the momentum and the knowledgebase that come with working on the project for years. Even though there's no money spent, time is spent. These time represent lost economic opportunity. However, it does not follows that there is no enormous economic gain for the first-mover in the free market in the absence of limitation on copying. Indeed, there are everyday examples like techdirt.com(often copied, with no attribution), Wikipedia, RedHat, and more that continues to defy your assertions everyday. The idea that people who have spent enormous amount of capitals and time will be gauranteed to lose out if there is no monopoly mechanism to protect their work does not simply folllow. There are many factors to consider such as how enlightened the big guys are, how fast they can move, how big is the first-mover advantage, how improtant reputation is to consumers. Some of these aspects cannot be easily copied. |
As far as the arbitrary length of the copyright being wrong, I fully agree. But I do not think throwing the baby with the bathwater is a solution. If a way would be found for the market to dictate it that would really be great... but in a way it does. There is commercial lobbies that push it up, and voters who push it down. We definitely need more pushing down lately.
About programming... I make my living writing software (freelance). All my clients "rent" my software, and I constantly work on it and update it according to how their business change (and it changes surprisingly often). The model works for both of us because:
1) They do not pay upfront for a big software, which may or may not turn out to be useful. They get much better value for their money, and make me directly motivated to keep the software always useful.
2) I do work more in the beginning, for practically no pay, but for each project I get a new source of income, and overall I make more money (over several years) then if I'd just write a software and leave. Also I like working with people I know.
Now, how does this depend on copyright? If, by any chance, the source code of the software would be leaked, the fact that I own the copyright would still force my clients to keep working with me. In a no-copyright world, anybody could take the software, add a few (useful) features and get the contract instead of me. Now I know what you will say. This is better for everybody, right? It's better for the client, because there is more competition, it's better for the guy who could take over because he will get business by doing something good, and it's better for me because it will force me to keep improving my software, right?
No. In such a world, I would simply not start the whole thing. EVER. It wouldn't pay. The whole thing depends on me working my ass of in the beginning, and then getting the reward in time. Without copyright, neither me not any other freelancer would start doing the work only to lose the contract in 6 month. Income security is a very direct factor in my decision to do it.
And this is not a big evil greedy corporation. This is me working for clients who usually become friends, or at least partners. I worry for their business, because I have a stake in it. And they know it, and value it. And this wouldn't be possible without IP.