> From: "Alan Sargent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Those people are dead and their music should part of the public >>> domain, in my humble opinion. >>> >> (to which Charles replied)
>> Well, it's certainly a ... refreshingly original ... thought. > To which Alan added: > Actually, it's the law, the question is how long it takes for music > (and > books, etc) to join the public domain. No, this is not the case. Being dead has NO effect on your copyrights, though I agree that it once did. The copyright law was changed DECADES ago to ignore the death of the original creator -- I believe it was the early 60s but I could be wrong on that. > In the US, the "Sonny Bono Copyright > Term Extension Act" added 20 years to existing and future copyrights, Yes, but again this has NOTHING to do with the creator's death date. It extended the length of copyright *from the date of creation*. > This is currently being appealed at the Supreme Court. See > http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/ > Let's be clear here: what is being challenged in court is a FURTHER extension of copyright for ANOTHER 20 years, aka the "Disney law." In short, Disney wants to hold onto their copyrighted creations and further exploit them yet still longer than they have already. Other megacorps support this because a) it's all about perpetual exploitation to them and b) they don't give a damn about the benefits of things going into the public domain, all the public good it does. Hopefully the justices will see this blatant attempt at corporate greed for what it is. >> I love how people have clear ideas about how copyright SHOULD be when >> it's pretty clear they are completely in the dark about how copyright >> IS. > > See above. > See my corrections above. > Who creates the "LAW"? Er, legistators. Whether they operate in cahoots with big business these days is another matter altogether, but the original copyright laws and the first big set of modifications were all written long before the rise of the megacorps and were designed mainly to protect individual authors, publishers and other artists, NOT big companies. Indeed, had "big business" written the copyright laws there wouldn't even BE such a premise as "public domain." > Disney and other media conglomerates financed the > campaigns of the congressmen and senators who proposed and voted in > these > bills to extend copyright effectively indefinitely (whenever the > previous > extension comes close to running out, a new extension is proposed.) > So don't vote for those people. In fact, today's your chance to make a statement about that! What's that? You didn't vote?? Oh, you DID vote but you didn't bother to find out where your congresscritters stand on this issue?? Hey, maybe THAT'S why we get such lousy government!! > Not to mention the DMCA and the proposed anti-P2P bills that would > allow > record companies to hack into any computer they suspected had a copy of > their products. > Nobody hates the DMCA more than me, BUT I don't hate it because I want to steal copyrighted material and the DMCA increases the incentives for me not to -- I hate it because it infringes on existing freedoms and rights I *already have* (such as copying music for my own personal use). >> You're saying it's okay for me to a) steal from dead people and > > "Stealing" from dead people. Interesting concept. Do you have ANY idea what laws already exist?? This is not an "interesting concept," it's been law since long before your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather was born. One of the most fundamental rights of our society -- indeed, ALL free societies -- is that a person's property goes to whoever the PERSON names as their heirs. If the dead have no rights, please mail your deceased mother's jewelry to me immediately, as she has no rights to it and you don't either. The property and creations of people are presevered after the person's death and passed on to their heirs. You can't seriously be arguing that this idea should be null and void. > Taxing (redistributing the wealth) of the dead is an excellent > idea, as it's little disincentive to production, unlike other taxes. > Whether the "death tax" is too high or low is a subject for another debate, but it's clear that in our society the bulk of a person's estate goes to their heirs (or the lawyers of their heirs anway :), and not the state. >> b) ignore any laws with which I don't personally agree. You really >> should >> consider a career in politics. > > Ignoring laws one doesn't agree with is the only true moral path, as > long > as one is ready to face the consequences. Though I doubt Gandhi would > have > fasted for Napster. So I can ignore ANY law with which I personally disagree? Uh, sure. Right. Can I assume that you're going to put your superior legal knowledge in action and stop paying income tax immediately? Can I watch when they take you away? _Chas_ Come to ... The CHASbah! http://thechasbah.blogspot.com Chas' CULTural Calendar (for Orlando): http://ical.mac.com/chasm/Chas'CULTuralCalendar -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:imac-list@;mail.maclaunch.com> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:imac-list-off@;mail.maclaunch.com> For digest mode, email: <mailto:imac-list-digest@;mail.maclaunch.com> Subscription questions: <mailto:listmom@;lemlists.com> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
