> RC> Don't scholars already have an exemption? You can use > samples to do > RC> research and use the samples in your final product. (FYI, > I know some > RC> aspects of the DCMA go against that - but we are talking > about copyright > RC> law in general, not that heap of trash. ;) Nothing > prevents you from > RC> studying Disney, or writing an essay that discusses > Disney and their > RC> works. > > Come on now. I could dig around for awhile and find some piece of art, > a movie, a book, that was created by someone who died between 1932 and > 1952 that would benefit someone somewhere that is living that we would > both agree is beneficial for everyone to be freely available.
No, I wouldn't agree. While I agree "Art" as a general concept is good for the public, the soul, etc, why couldn't you find something that an artist _chose_ to give away? Let's pretend I'm a great composer - a wonderful composer - the best ever - just because my music is wonderful doesn't mean I have to give it away - today or 50 years from now. > I think the Gershwin example is a pretty good one though. I don't > listen to classical, but why shouldn't that stuff be public domain? Maybe Gershwin didn't want it? > People will benefit from greater access to his works via compilations, > free download from the internet, etc. Who knows, maybe a young > musician will be inspired by the free mp3 he downloaded from some web > site of Gershwin's music, or maybe Microsoft will make Win.Net's > startup tune play a bit of his music :) Those could be positive > effects for society as a whole imo. Again, I'm not debating whether or not art is 'good' - I'm debating why we should 'force' art to be free. Yes, making it free makes it more available, but we don't make everything 'good' for us free. You can't send your child to the best school just because it would be 'good' for him - you have to pay for that school. (This is assuming the school is private.) > I think it really comes down to the same thing a lot of things do > these days it seems, Corporate rights vs Individual rights. Something > I don't think our framers thought much about, other than the fact that > they definitely wanted all works to become property of the people > after a period of time. There are some good links on the Eldred site > about the intentions of the framers of the Constitution that I haven't > read yet, otherwise I'd be able to argue my point better. :) Ah, good point - but you are assuming all art is owned by a corp. What about MY right as an individual to NOT share my art if I don't want to? -RC ______________________________________________________________________ This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
