> At 07:39 PM 6/15/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Has anyone noticed the contradictions in Washington's policies > towards the > >Entertainment Industry and the Pharmaceutical Industry? > > > >We're told that the Entertainment Industry needs extended > copyright periods > >and strict limits on the rights of consumers to purchase "generic" > >entertanment products but the Pharmaceutical Industry is being told that > >copyright periods will not be extended and that it should be > made easier to > >purchase generic drugs... If Micky Mouse was a drug his copy protection > >would have expired in about 50 years ago. > > Do you mean patents on drugs? If so then I'd like to see both them and > copyrights revised a bit. I honestly do believe in patents. The problem > with complete eradication of patents is that a lot of future > knowledge will > be lost. Patents encourage companies to publicly expose critical > information in exchange for years of legalized monopoly. Without > patents a > lot of future innovations will remain trade secrets. That would > result in a > lot of lost or reproduced effort. The current system > though--especially as > it pertains to software--needs to be worked on.
I think that most people would agree that the current patent and copyright law has been well and truly broken by the advances in technology and communications in the last twenty years. The problem becomes more and more obvious with each fix that Washington etc apply. Copyrights were originally granted for 14 years (extended to 28 years in 1831), but today most "works made for hire" it is now 95 years! A patent on a pharmaceutical drug on the other hand last 20 years (and most drugs can't be sold for the first 8 to 10 years because they're still in the FDA approval pipeline). So: RIAA et al ....... products protected for 95 years. Drug companies ... products protected for 20 years. This disparity seems odd to me. Software is an interesting case - I can't see any real justification for providing copyright/patent protection for software - at least in the sense of trying to protect an algorithm - it's too easy to change a few line here and there and them claim it's a "new" work. Software programs OTOH probably should be covered as "works made for hire" but probably not for more than 5-10 years. As for the RIAA - MP3 has changed the landscape ... artists should now plan to get paid for quality and performance - not quantity. I think this is an improvement. Regards Edmund Cramp -- It is a source of much embarrassment to me that I was distracted by a combination of Usenet, Western European history, and writing instead of wine, women and song. -- Matt McLeod, in the Monastery
