David W. Fenton wrote:
On 24 Oct 2007 at 18:00, dhbailey wrote:
Personally I think it costs the public a *lot* to have such lengthy
copyright terms, just not in economic terms.
I was not by any means thinking of direct monetary costs.
Unfortunately, that's the only thing certain kinds of politicians
seem to understand.
There seems to be no concept among our public servants of the idea of
investing in the future, whether monetarily or not.
That's true -- the future isn't going to make the current politician
last any longer in office, won't vote in any election he/she may be
running in, and certainly won't make any campaign contributions which
they can make use of to lead a life of luxury.
What ever happened to the notion of politicians serving in government
because it's the right thing to do, as opposed to serving as a means to
greater wealth? And whatever happened to the notion that public
servants are supposed to serve the public and not tiny segments of the
public, those who make the greatest campaign contributions or who pay to
hold spurious conferences at foreign travel hotspots?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
