On Tuesday 07 June 2005 02:49 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 02:36:27PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > > To resolve this sad and not uncommon story, Congress granted the > > copyright holders an inalienable termination right which allows the > > author to revoke a > > In other words, "for their own good", Congress removed people's right to > license their own creations however they see fit; they restricted freedom > to "preserve it". And as expected, it backfires as soon as an unexpected > situation arises--such as people honestly wanting to give their creation > to the world, for free, guaranteeing that the work will always remain > under those terms.
Yes... because SO many works are released directly into the Public Domain... foolish Congress, protecting the rights of the many over the obscure wishes of the few. If you really want to ensure your works stay forever free, then make sure you teach your mate and offspring (the only folks who can exercise your termination right other than yourself) the value of your decisions. I like the Public Domain, don't get me wrong... but I dislike strong armed corporations more, so I think the balance struck by Congress works pretty well. > > Certainly it is frustrating, but I think there are sound policy reasons > > behind the law. > > I disagree strongly. It's restricting what I can do with my own works, > denying me the basic right to give it away for free, without the threat > of revocation down the line. You sound like a corporate lawyer... they would love nothing more than for the freedom of contract to be absolute. Imagine situations where you sign away 1st amendment speech rights to get a job, or maybe whistle-blower protections. Oh yes, it would truly be a brave new world if your way of thinking ruled the day. -Sean -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
