> From: James Davis > I fail to see what increasing copyright terms will achieve, > fifty years > is a long time and if you've failed to build upon the number of > profitable works you've produced in fifty years it's not likely that > another five years, let alone 20+ is going to make a difference.
Think of the luxurious coffin you'll be able to afford! You'll also be able to ensure that there's a legacy sufficient to provide fresh flowers on one's gravestone each and every day thereafter until the memory of one's greatness eventually expires. To understand this madness it's best to think of copyright in the hands of an artist as Sauron's ring in the hands of Frodo. Unless the artist is a sufficiently powerful individual (and 99% of artists aren't), copyright can only be wielded by a publisher. And artists can't really stand up to publishers, but must rely upon publishers competing with each other to offer the artist a good deal for the copyright. Suffice it to say that the immortal lifespan being pleaded for is not for the benefit of the artist, but for the benefit of the publisher. Consequently one is supposed to imagine that publishers will offer artists greater rewards for their copyrights if the duration of their power is extended. Unfortunately, what has slipped unnoticed by the dark lords is the fact that copyrights are weapons of power that can only be wielded against each other. Of course, they can instantly vaporise a mere halfling, but if such abuse against the natural order is sustained for too long, other far stronger forces intervene to gradually render those weapons of power impotent. So, when you see artists pleading for copyright extension, see if they've already sold their souls to the dark lords and are merely thralls in their service. _______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
