The Economist on copyrights

Digital technologies are not only making it easier to copy all sorts of works, but also sharply reducing the costs of creating or distributing them, and so also reducing the required incentives. The flood of free content on the internet has shown that most creators do not need incentives that stretch across generations. To reward those who can attract a paying audience, and the firms that support them, much shorter copyrights would be enough. The 14-year term of the original 18th-century British and American copyright laws, renewable once, might be a good place to start.

Hey, why settle for less?

[Via Lessig]

Update: actually, the whole serie titled « Survey: the internet society » is quite interesting. It starts with « Digital Dilemmas« .

An interesting take on the evolution of culture and copyright

Good art is good PR: Artists used to be sponsored by the very rich, partly so that the patrons might be remembered by their association with a work of art valuable (and preserved) for its own sake. Today’s artists are sponsored by middlemen (broadcasters, content providers, music publishers, etc.) to create content for its own sake, which is then bundled with advertisements and sold or otherwise distributed to the public – but in a copyright-controlled fashion.

Coming soon to our universe: advertisers who sponsor art where « product placement » is an integral feature of the art itself. Check out www.bmwfilms.com as an example of cool content that wants to be free – and freely distributed. Will this kind of art outlast the product?

[via Bill Fitler’s HeisenBlog]