> The problem is that X years can never be up to the creator. > Once the creator dies, their direct control dies and any > chance of benefitting from their creation dies. Period. It's > not a question of law, it's a question of ability, so why > shouldn't the creation then revert to benefit society?
That's my point though - just vecause they _should_ doesn't mean they must. People should benefit society, but we don't force them too. > And I say "revert" because as I said, unprotected is it's > natural state. Before laws, a Neanderthal man created a knife > from flint in order to survive. Another Neanderthal copies > that knife that she too may survive, even if the original > Neanderthal may not have wanted to share that creation. Is > that illegal or natural? > Of course, that second neanderthal could have killed the first and not be breaking any law. ;) -rc ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
