On 10/5/05, m ike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
grammar edit: 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? -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
