Gabriel Sechan wrote:
From: DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Life of copyright is not to exceed the shorter period of the natural
life of the creator or 125 years. In the case of a work by multiple
authors, the life of the copyright is the shorter period of the life
of the last living author or 125 years.
125 years? Thats way too insanely long. The reason the original
copyright was 20 years was that it took a long time to physically create
and distribute books worldwide. Printing, paper making, and travel
times being many times what they are now.
Notice that I said
"shorter period of the natural life of the creator or 125 years"
That was to cover the case mentioned in the thread of increasing human
lifespans. I figured 125 years would give it enough legs that by the
time people lived to be typically 125 we'd come up with something more
sensible than copyrights.
125 years was an arbitrary number on my part based on the fact that it
is not that uncommon for people to live to 105 now.
In today's world, the period ought to be shortened, not lengthened. Its
possible to bring a work to market world wide in under a year, and start
the movie and soundtrack in 6 months. 3-5 years sounds right. It keeps
a fire on them to continue to create as well- that is the purpose of
copyright, to encourage creation of new works.
Given all things static, that's true. But the world is not static and
the presumption that present technology covers all bases is hubris, as
hurricane Katrina recently reminded us.
In addition, copyright infringement should only be illegal if the work
is used for profit. Non-profit infringement such as making a copy to
give to a friend should be inherently legal. It actually helps profits
anyway, it acts as marketing.
Gabe
I think I'll have to agree with you here. I've often thought about this
case: what is the real harm in non-profit distribution?
Maybe it depends on the media of the art. It's easy enough to copy a
music or game CD. A bit harder to copy a movie DVD. Harder still to copy
a book and damn hard work to copy an eight foot high sculpture or
musical performance.
But what happens if the artist makes little to no money because everyone
makes a personal copy rather than buying one because they know it's okay?
But my observation is that possibility exists today. While it's easy for
the average American to copy music, software, and movies, still more
people purchase a legitimate copy. Apple has also shown that if the
price barrier is low enough, people seem to prefer buying than copying.
Which all seems to strengthen your point.
The catch would be what are the defining conditions of "for-profit
copying"? We can't just say it covers only people making a profit. What
about someone who intends to make a profit but is a lousy businessman
and so, despite selling millions of copies of someone else's work, still
doesn't make a penny - or even loses money?
[1] As opposed to the imagined case of say, the BSA.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
