m ike wrote:
I could be miss reading the sentiments in this thread, but it seems some posts are anti-copyright? Yes/no?
No, I don't believe that anyone here is anti-copyright.
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.
The objection isn't so much the author. If we wanted to make sure that an author's copyright extends as long as he lives, even that would be okay (until lifespan extensions become an issue).
However, it is the fact that the copy can be passed on to a corporation which maintains that copyright indefinitely which is the problem. Nothing ever passes into the public domain.
For example, no one will ever be able to sing "Happy Birthday" on stage at this rate. The copyright on that is what keeps restaurant waitstaff from singing it. Ever wonder why nobody plays "Tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree" in spite of the fact that every car has a yellow ribbon? Yup, copyright again. That song hasn't been used in over 30 years *and* hasn't particularly earned any money either (it's part of a spat between the two parties). Society certainly does not benefit from that. If they had to *pay* for that copyright, something would have to be done to get that song earning money. Society would benefit from either the expiration of the copyright or the forced commercial utilization of that copyright.
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.
There is a difference in how they are used, though. Ideas build on what comes before. Money just simply is. Ideas are additive; money is a consumable.
-a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
