Vin McLellan wrote:
> > anonymous' view is too drastic, but I guess that he's more
> > close to home as far as copyright AS A BUSINESS is concerned. I
> > don't remember any multinational corporations living entirely on
> > (C) in, say, 1928.
>
> In the 1920s, all over the industrialized world, there were large,
> well-established, "third-party" corporate entities which invested in the
> the creation, "publication," and distribution of radio broadcasts,
> photographs, sound recordings on cylinders and records, even moving
> pictures -- although, at least in the US, it often took a few years for
> new media to gain full copyright protection.
I stand corrected. I had put these into the distribution business, not
the (C) biz, especially since they provided something the general public
was not capable of producing themselves (which is not the case with CDs
or tapes today). however, I must agree that without (C), this industry
would most likely not have existed in the form it did.
> No one shouldn't be afraid of copyright (or patents, IMNSHO.) I suggest,
> however, that we should be very concerned with the steady erosion in the
> public claim to eventual free access.
>
> In the US, at least, no copyright held by a corporation has been given
> over to the public domain since WWI -- and, Tom's suggestion to the
> contrary, there were many of them in corporate hands even then;-)
are there any sources for this?
maybe one should go the opposite way. how about drafting a suggestion
for an extension of (C) to eternity? let's just grant (C) protection
forever. that should make people listen to why (C) is limited. I'm
afraid nobody knows those reasons anymore.
