On 11/18/06, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Yes, but. When we go to force someone else to agree with us, i.e. institute the force of law, we should be damned sure we're operating on principle, not on practicality. Principle is most often the practical way, but even when it isn't Principle *always* comes first. 10 years. 20 years. Lifetime. What's the guiding force here? By what principle do you believe one shoud *ever* give up his/her copyright? It seems to me that no arbitrary year-amount will ever meet principle. Either copyright is something one deserves or something one *doesn't* deserve. One is morally the owner of the product of his mind or one isn't. No middle ground. -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
