Copyrights: A radical rethink (Economist) [LWN.net]

The Economist has posted a column on copyright inspired by the Eldred v. Ashcroft ruling. "Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving creators and publishers a short-term incentive to disseminate their work. Over the past 50 years, as a result of heavy lobbying by content industries, copyright has grown to such ludicrous proportions that it now often inhibits rather than promotes the circulation of ideas, leaving thousands of old movies, records and books languishing behind a legal barrier. Starting from scratch today, no rational, disinterested lawmaker would agree to copyrights that extend to 70 years after an author's death, now the norm in the developed world." They argue for much shorter copyrights, but for giving copyright holders "legal backing" for copy protection technologies.

Also in this week's Economist: an article on the BSA/CSPP/RIAA deal and a lengthy survey on the Internet society, with articles in privacy, copyright protection, direct democracy, and more.

(Log in to post comments)

Not a column but a leader

Posted Jan 29, 2003 6:05 UTC (Wed) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link]

This piece is not a "column" but a "leader" which, if I understand
correctly, means that it expresses the opinion of the newspaper,
as an editorial does. (A column, on the other hand, expresses
the opinion of a particular columnist.) That's an important
difference.

I have been pleasantly surprised by The Economist's reporting
of technology issues recently. I wonder who's behind it?

--
Thomas Hood

Not a column but a leader

Posted Jan 31, 2003 14:15 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

I've always been bothered by the Economist's lack of by-lines,
I'm glad someone else is too. So much of its content expresses
opinions as though they are facts -- for instance about the
pretexts for war -- but you never get to find out whose opinions
they are. The whole journal wants to be taken as authoritative.
A pity, because as a general news source it's one of the most
comprehensive.