Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 5:06:12 PM, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> RC> In other words - open source is nice - but we don't
>> _force_ developers
>> RC> to give their code away.
>>
>> RC> Just some rambling thoughts this morning....
>>
>> Benefits of freeing the world from Mickey Mouse licensing fees? I see
>> none :)
>> However the court case is really more about the more valuable
>> copyrights that continue to generate revenue for a company that does
>> nothing. That is negative production imho, and bad for the society. I
>> think more importantly the copyright extension also covers a huge
>> amount of material that is of no monetary use to anyone, but needs to
>> be de-copyrighted so it can be copied, and me and you can buy dvd's of
>> old 30's movies and music that otherwise would never be seen.
RC> But that is the crux of my point. You do not NEED those old movies. You
RC> may want them - but you do not need them. YOu won't die without them.
RC> Scientists will still discover the cure for cancer without them. People
RC> won't go hungry without them. Etc.
RC> To me it comes down to one basic premis:
RC> There are things companies should do and things companies MUST
RC> do.
RC> A company SHOULD share/release to open source/etc.
RC> A company should not be FORCED to do so.
RC> Also - why is it bad for society that Disney makes money from old
RC> movies? If the old movies make money - they still have value. Why should
RC> I have the right to say that Disney can't make money off the content it
RC> owns just because X years have passed?
RC> As a content producer (although on a very limited basis), I make the
RC> decision to share my works with others. However, if someone _forced_ me
RC> to do it, I don't think I would like that very much.
Well unfortunately for you, our founding fathers put into the
Constitution that Congress shall only be able to secure inventors
exclusive access to their respective writings, discoveries, etc for a
limited time. I happen to agree with that wholeheartedly. I also
disagree strongly that society as a whole would not benefit from
materials that have had their copyrights extended becoming public
domain. Historians if no one else are big benefactors.
The issue in the trial is 70 vs 50 years though. Berne says 50, and I
think that's a good number.
--
jon
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________________________________________________________________
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
