Doug Meerschaert wrote:
>
> > > Reasonable? Consider that the term on copyrights was extended to 75
> > > years for the sole purpose of granting Disney more income from them.
>
> But EVERYONE benefits--not just Disney. You might as well say that the
> Civil Rights laws were passed just for the sole purpose of granting rights
> to the blacks who crusaded for them.
>
Actually, it hurts a lot of people -- it eliminates those who benefit
from being able to use works in the public domain. For example, if
modern copyright laws were in effect in 1938, there would have been no
Snow White, no Pinnochio, no Alice in Wonderland -- at least, not from
Disney. Grossly overextended copyright law prevents the development of a
cultural bedrock.
> > 90, actually. :)
> >
> > Amd I concur -- that aspect of copyright IS unreasonable. Apparently,
> > Congress interprets the 'limited time' clause of the constitution to be
> > 'anything less than infinite'.
>
> Oh, come off it.
>
> People can live for 90 years... and no one should live to see something they
> created be "public domain" by statue.
Why not? The duration was 28 years when the Constitution was written. In
any event, it is 90 years FROM DEATH OF AUTHOR. Furthermore, until the
Berne convention, any work not *explicitly* copyrighted did indeed enter
the public domain immediately.
Do you really feel Disney would say, "No, we won't fund this new movie,
it will be public domain in only 50 years."??? Given that the term of
copyright was LESS than that when the original works were created, the
argument that they would not have been created is rather spurious, eh
wot?
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
