Raymond, First off, the article was extremely poorly written to represent the situation at hand. But I'll get back to that in a bit.
In a fundamenal way, the natural state of all material people produced is that it is unprotected. This is not bad. Virtually the entire historical archive of human civilization exists only through art, architecture and literature. In many ways, a society is literally defined by these things, and a society that wants to be rich and vital needs to have an open sharing of this material. If it weren't for free literature, we wouldn't have laws. If it wasn't for free art, we wouldn't have surgeons. If it wasn't for free sharing of principles and methods of architecture, we wouldn't have cities. If a person creates something and hides it away in order to protect their possession, then society can not grow and benefit from it. Copyright law is a means to grant people rights of ownership over things they create, but it doesn't do this just for the hell of it. Copyright law is there not for the benefit of the individual. The individual can create something and keep it to themselves just fine without copyright law. If you make something and don't show it to anyone they can't steal it, but you can still use it. Copyright law is a creation of society _for the benefit of society_. It encourages people to create things and NOT keep them to themselves. It does this because the society wants to benefit itself, not the creator. Society _needs_ the creations in order to grow. So society needs to know how to get that creation for itself, but still encourage the person to want to make the creation. Enter copyright law. Society gives the person some limited period of ownership where they can benefit personally, then that creation reverts to it's natural public state which is free which then is to the benefit of society. As to the article: it isn't about copyright vs. no copyright. It isn't even about peole wanting to copy Mickey Mouse. Disney lawyers successfully put that out as a red-herring diversion. The issue at hand is all of the unknown material that is locked in vaults of copyright. The owners don't even often know what it is, and certainly don't consider it worth publishing. "That? That's old, why would anyone pay for it?" they ask. But if it were to revert to the public domain, then society could benefit where the individual owner wouldn't. But the only way to free up those materials is to keep the time limit of the grant of copyright reasonable. But to do so would ALSO have cause Mickey Mouse to fall into the public domain. So Disney is worried about their trademark mouse and their old movies. But the clamor wasn't for those, the clamor was for something you've never seen. Disney just shifted the discussion. Curiously enough, Mickey Mouse is "stolen" pre-existing drawings, and the majority of Disney stories are "stolen" from public domain fairy tales and stories. Disney benefitted from the public domain, why shouldn't you? -Kevin Graeme > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:39 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: 20 more years of copyrights > > > I still say this isn't a big deal. From the article: > > " The 7-2 ruling, while not unexpected, was a blow to Internet > publishers and others who wanted to make old books available online and > use the likenesses of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and other old creations > without paying high royalties." > > So what. Is the world going to end because a web site can't use Mickey > Mouse for free? I say that if Disney wants to keep MM protected, so be > it. Shoot, maybe they end up hurting themselves in the end because they > are so anal, but darn it, they created MM, they own it. Live with it. > Every discussion about copyright always seems to contain people whining > about not being able to access content - does anyone even give a darn > how the content producers feel? > > If I want you to have the right to publish my poem, I should give it to > you - you should not take that right from me. People should _want_ to > share - not be forced to share. > > -rc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:29 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: 20 more years of copyrights > > > > > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?X54721913 > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
