At 05:11 PM 5/11/02 -0500, Charles Martin chasm-at-mac.com wrote: >> "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*.
Sorry, wrong. For works for hire (probably most of your work), the extension (Bono act) increases the copyright term from 75 (previously) to 95 years from creation. For individual authors, the term is extended from life of the author plus 50 years to life plus 70 years. For music, it would depend on whether the artist retained rights or transferred them to a company which would apply. Most book authors retain individual rights. >> 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." You're confused, the "Disney Law" IS aka the 1998 Bono act. You can't challenge a law until it's enacted. http://cubicmetercrystal.com/log/eldred2.html "Petitioners are before you this morning challenging Congress's 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act" >> Who creates the "LAW"? > >Er, legistators. Whether they operate in cahoots with big business >these days is another matter altogether, No, it's exactly the point. Special interest groups actually draft a lot of legislation. > 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?? No, I'm not an American. America applies its laws on the rest of the world by force of money/arms. >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 Don't impute worse motives to me. >>> You're saying it's okay for me to a) steal from dead people and >> >> "Stealing" from dead people. Interesting concept. >............... >You can't seriously be >arguing that this idea should be null and void. NO, I didn't. Read what I wrote, reply to that not your straw man. > >> 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. I didn't say the state should confiscate estates. Only that they should be taxed. >>> 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. Not "can", have a moral duty to. Which doesn't make you immune to penalties or imprisonment. As Gandhi, Mandela, and other lawbreakers. >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? That's what I meant about consequences. I don't disagree with the concept of taxes, so I pay them. (Why do you continue to ascribe such extreme motives to me (and others who disagree with you)? It's just ad hominem, unsupported by any facts, and offensive.) I hope I would have the courage to defy an unjust law, or at least support those that do. -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------
