David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2007 at 5:43, dhbailey wrote:
Looked at as a moral copyright issue, it's easy to view it as a
boondoggle. Viewed in a much larger picture of economic issues,
employment issues, tax issues, it's not as easy a decision -- the
Government gets a lot of benefit from Disney's extended copyrights, as
do the many thousands of Disney employees who continue to work for a
corporation whose major asset continues to be protected.
But it comes at the expense of the public.
And the public as a whole doesn't seem to have any hired lobbyists to
convince Congress that their side of things should be considered as
well (well, maybe the EFF).
Playing devil's advocate here a la the Ragpicker (Danny Kaye in the
movie) in the Madwoman of Chaillot -- what is the expense to the
public? What money does it cost the public to let Disney keep the mouse
under copyright? Instead, the thousands of employees of Disney
corporation pay taxes on their share of the income that the
mouse-copyright provides, they buy their houses from local realtors,
they buy their groceries and gasoline and clothes and books and other
stuff from local economies, go to local movie theaters to watch movies,
etc. etc. etc. As Ragpicker says -- who benefits? And what expense is
there to the public? That they can't make use of the mouse? Big deal!
Is that really so bad? I'm sure the women in that movie would vote to
convict anyway, just as they voted to convict the businessman, the
preacher, the government minister, the russian politician.
Not playing devil's advocate anymore, originally, the U.S. Congress
*was* the public's "lobbyists" -- the members of congress were supposed
to look out for what was in the best interests of the citizens back home
who elected them. It wasn't until Grant's presidency (if I remember my
civics lessons correctly) that the lobbying began, and it was called
that because the powers that be would gather at a certain hotel in D.C.
and anybody who wanted to get their ear would try to speak with them in
the lobby.
Gradually the lobbyists won out so that now the interests of the
citizens (i.e. the "public" in "public domain") are of only minimal
importance in the light of corporate campaign contributions which the
incumbents need so badly so they can keep their cushy public-be-damned jobs.
Personally I think it costs the public a *lot* to have such lengthy
copyright terms, just not in economic terms. I find it especially
galling that a corporation which made so much of its fortunes on its
presentations of public domain materials is so hell-bent on locking its
own creations up forever so that no future disney-wannabe could build on
them.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
