Copyright does not cover facts but only a particular expression of those facts. This sounds like something further is afoot, such as nondisclosure agreements.
The author of any copyrighted piece deserves protection, but the length of copyright today is WAY, WAY too long (length of the author's life plus seventy years). Sorry, but copyright was NOT originally set up to provide income to the author's great-grandchildren.
I think I essentially agree with him.
“for the sake of the common good””
“Common good” is a catchword term dear tothe agendas of fascists and Communists.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time listening to a pope who doesn’t know the distinction between a copyright (which protects Disney and other producers of written works or performance art) and a patent (which has been wildly successful in encouraging drug companies and medical device manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products knowing they can (temporarily) reap the rewards of doing so).
Due to the lengthy regulatory process required to bring drugs to market, the average length of patent protection in the U.S. is only 11-12 years http://www.innovation.org/documents/File/Pharmaceutical_Patents.pdf
In reality, most pharma companies already do provide deep discounts for life-saving drugs sold in poor countries. If we want the supply of new life-saving drugs to continue, the solution to lack of affordability is not to short-sightedly abandon protection of intellectual property, but instead strengthen it.
Think of it this way: poor African countries survived thousands of years without new lifesaving Drug X. The patent system requires them to wait 10-11 years, after which such countries have free access to all the intellectual property underlying Drug X and are free to produce it at no cost to their citizens if so desired.
In contrast, by removing patent protection entirely, such countries may NEVER receive the benefits of this life-saving product, since no one will have the incentive to invest the $1 billion average cost that it takes to bring just 1 new drug to market. Does the Pope really think the world would be better off under the latter arrangement?
The incentive to create something that results in financial gain while benefiting society is what built this country to become the leader in the world. If that reward is reduced or eliminated the incentive is taken away. Take away the reward and you destroy the future of creativity. The world has benefited from reward based creativity. To threaten that is to threaten continued benefits.
His Holiness should continue to act and speak where he has expertise and authority; economics and commerce are not such disciplines.
Copyright abuse ping
This article is about what someone said about what someone said about what the Pope supposedly said.
Frankly, I’d like to see the original quote, in context.
The Founding Fathers set copyright terms at 14 years, renewable for another 14 years.
That should be sufficient.
And the Holy Father seems here to actually be talking about patents. I don’t have a strong view on patents, as I think they’re still limited to 17 years. Although, I oppose software patents, as they are like patenting math, and are often granted for vague and obvious things.
More about "the common good." Ownership trumped by "the common good." Not good.