> And society wants something in return. I thought that society was on my side, and against yours. I thought that the duration of a copyright has been increasing over the years, and that obtaining one has become easier. Correct me if I'm wrong. I often am wrong, but that is the fate of inventors and artists.
> It would be better for _everyone_ if those inventions were well-known... Depends. Nature doesn't operate that way. Look what evolution has come up with. Lots of useful mutations are lost. Lots of duplicate mutations occur. Occasionally healthy populations become extinct within one generation due to epidemics. If I were Ambrose Bierce, I might define a "limited copyright" as license to rape and plunder. But not in the way that first comes to mind. What? Well, some of those who don't invent/create want for free the fruits of life work of those who do. But deep inside the lazy know that those things do not belong to them, and it is unfair to take any of them. So what do the lazy do? They play the bully's game "Okay, I'll count to ten and if you don't give me your sandwich by then, then I will clobber you and just take it". The bully gave you a chance. Its your fault that you got clobbered. By making the "counting to ten" a law, the lazy institutionalize bullying in order to rationalize the taking of what does not belong to them. Best, Mike -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
