David Fenton wrote: >That doesn't change the fact that I support UE's right to protect >their copyrights as defined in the various jurisdictions. > >I only question the Draconian nature of their demands for the IMSLP -- > it makes them look like assholes who aren't really that interested >in public good, and only in lining their own pockets.
I agree about UE's right to protect their copyrights. My objection is to the law, not to those who assert their rights as granted by said law. The real problem, I would suggest, is that copyright law is too murky. That's what encourages draconian threats and assertions that overstep actual rights, because it creates a legal environment in which overwhelming force is what works best. It's the classic question of rule of law vs rule of man. If the law and the basic principles were more clearly delineated, there would be less scope for courts or other governmental bodies to exercise their influence, and that in turn would make these decisions turn less on which party is more influential (ie, has the deepest pockets for legal fees). Like many here, I think copyright terms are now far too long, and I'd like to see them shortened (though I would add that no term for a work should be shortened to less than was promised when the work was published, because that would be an unacceptable breach of government promise). In addition to that, as a wholly separate matter, I think that regardless of what the terms are to be, the whole body of copyright law needs to be reformed and clarified, based on a fresh assessment of core principles. mdl _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
