> A law that allows copyright to be continously extended is > unconstitutional, regardless of the amount of money involved. > "Limited" mean limited, though our politicians appear not to have read > that part.
My post here is more of a general question than a question in response to the above post. I could be miss reading the sentiments in this thread, but it seems some posts are anti-copyright? Yes/no? Personally, I don't see why any author should have to pay anything to anyone in order to establish and maintain a copyright forever. It ought to be inherent to the creative process. A person can earn tons of money and keep it forever, passing it from one generation to the next. The money is just as viable a resource to society as a body of copyrighted material. I've never heard the basis for anti-copyright. This is an honest question: what is the harm? That is outside of the socialism/individualism debate, what is the harm? Best, Mike -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
