That's a very unconventional view. I'd argue that as presented it is based on an over-simplification of copyright. Specifically, "something that didn't exist before the person who created it" and "everyone can have as much of it as they want so long as they're willing to create their own" do not seem to accurately describe copyright law to me.
I don't think it's unconventional. Almost nobody outside certain circles cares about the "public domain." It's a romantic idea that has little relevance.
And why do you think that description of copyright law is inaccurate? Copyright protects concrete expression, not abstract ideas, and independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement. How many sci-fi books are basically identical and rehash the same tropes? That's not copyright infringement. It's only infringement if you actually copy someone else's work.
> It's only infringement if you actually copy someone else's work.
This is inaccurate. Copyright has been extended to cover fictional characters for instance.
Consider that at the copyright term of 144 years proposed, the character of Count Dracula would still be under copyright, and not freely usable for artistic works.
Unlike patent law which protects novelty, copyright only protects originality. Violating copyright requires actual copying of material.
Theoretically, you could independently conceive of Count Dracula[1] and put him into your own work without violating someone else's copyright. To prove violation of copyright the copyright holder must as a preliminary matter provide evidence that the defendant likely had access or exposure to the copyrighted material. Only once that evidence exists could the fact finder infer, based on similarity, actual copying. For widely disseminated pop cultural material, however, exposure is a rather easy burden to meet.
[1] I presume for the sake of argument that the character Count Dracula is per se copyrighted. But I don't think that's true. AFAIU only certain stylized versions of that character are copyrighted. This necessarily follows from the fact that to show violation of copyright you must first identify the specific material that has been copied, and then show substantive similarity and the extent of copying. IMO modern copyright law is too liberal in this regard (i.e. favors copyright holders) and has gotten rid of many bright line rules that rejected infringement claims early on. But all of this absolutely matters if you're going to trial. The Oracle v Google case was fundamentally about how to construe similarity and extent in the context of APIs.
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.
> 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.
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?
Yes; Mickey Mouse is covered by copyright law, via the copyright on the original work he appeared in -- Steamboat Willie.
While the protection of the copyright of Steamboat Willie in itself is probably of no consequence to Disney, it's foundation to the licensability of Mickey Mouse is.
The copyright on Steamboat Willie only protects Steamboat Willie. Copyright is specific to the work it protects; it does not provide general protection of the characters in the work.
Mickey Mouse the character is protected by trademark. Unlike copyright, there is no time limit on trademarks. As long as they remain in active use and defended by the mark holder, they remain protected. To be clear: Steamboat Willie could enter the public domain tomorrow and it would not affect Mickey's trademark status.
