On 10/5/05, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:45:44PM -0700, m ike wrote: > > > > 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? > > Copyright, and its sister patent, were well discussed in the Federalist > and Anti-Federalist Papers.
thank you! > The subject was in the constitution in the > first place because of the abuses of copyright and patent by the English > king. The Kings of the day would assign copyrights and patents to their > cronies as a method of rewarding them with a stream of unearned income. > These extended to such things as copyrights on playing cards (to a noble > who had not invented or designed playing cards) and a patent on salt. Politics aside, the copyright and patent themselves seem fair to me. Salt is a little extreme, but not anymore so than realestate. > Some like Jefferson (you gonna call Jefferson a socialist?) thought > there simply should be no copyrights and patents because it would > inevitably be abused. I guess I'm just of the opinion that if I create something (write a novel) or invent something (design a new screwdriver) that I own it. > It is an undeniable fact that every time Mickey Mouse's copyright is > about to run out, the big players (MPAA, RIAA, Disney, Turner) kick up > the campaign contributions, and copyright gets pushed out another twenty > years. I didn't know this, thanks. It seems ridiculous to me that Disney has to do such things in order to maintain their copyright. I cannot image that anyone's life or happiness depends on their being able use for free a Disney character for profit (or non-profit). Best, Mike -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
