On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 02:27:21PM -0800, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > The main issue I have with copyright is that it doesn't deliver any > reverse pain.
I'd be happy to reply to this comment if I knew what it meant. :) > My solution to the copyright dilemma is to grant it for 20 years after > initial publication to the original producer without charge and without > filing. After that, an increasing scale of payments is required to > renew it. Say, double the price every 10 years. No upper limit. How did you get 20 years? Why not 5? Why not zero? Why should anyone have the option of denying the public the benefit of a creative work for decades even if they were willing to pay for it? People would be willing to pay big $$$ for long copyrights if work was in high demand. High demand works are works that are important to our culture, scholarship and learning. These are precisely the works we especially would not want locked down at any price! Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
