Monday, July 7, 2003, 5:06:09 PM, you wrote: WB> hold on there...The design of the Wright brother's aeroplane may have been WB> patented but is it also copyrighted? Or are just the plans themselves (the WB> physical representation of the plans)? In the copyright case, would use of WB> that explicit design be technically forbidden without permission? OR just WB> use/re-publishing of the plans?
I shouldn't have used a patent example...I was speaking more towards the innovation issue. Copyright's and patents encourage innovation, but they can also harm it as well. Thomas Jefferson, whom the US patent office calls their WB> Innovation has always been looked upon favorably by the patent office (in WB> the case of designs), so I don't exactly get the connection there. WB> Improvements to existing inventions can be seperately patented without WB> violation of the original patent, no? So better wings added to the fuselage, WB> tail rudder, put the tail on the back of the plane, would be innovations to WB> an existing patent...innovative and deriviative but not necessarily WB> stealing? Question of degree I guess... Innovation as in say...Casablanca 2, or a story using their characters. It may not be a summer blockbuster, but I bet a good amount of people would love to see it. >> What good does it do American Citizens if a stagnant corporation that >> no longer knows how to innovate is able to continue existing and >> standing in the way of real innovators? It's corporate welfare...and >> anti-capitalist. WB> Who determines that they are "stagnant"? The free market does. WB> If I go to your web site and steal WB> original artwork, or plagarize your book and use it as my own, should I be WB> prosecuted? I say yes, and to the fullest extent of the law. I am not for plagiarizing or stealing anything. I am against the "forever minus 1 day" copyright length limit we seem to have...because Disney lines the pockets of our senators. WB> Oh, and FWIW, if these people are so damned innovative, how come they have WB> to take other people's work? How come they are spending so much time worried WB> about what they can steal from other creative folks? Or how long after one WB> dies they can capitalize on one's work? What if Eminem didn't have to waste time getting Aerosmith's permission to sample Sing for the Moment? Eminem innovated on a pervious creation...but he had to have a zillion dollars and contacts with the record company to pull it off. Why shouldn't some killer young artist be able to sing a better version and get his own zillion dollars, after a certain amount of time (much less that 75 years) has past? WB> Copyrighted is copyrighted, you shouldn't be able to steal my work just WB> 'cause you feel like it. I have a right to profit from what I created don't WB> I? And I don't have to share if I don't want to... WB> :-P WB> will -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
