From: m ike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> people. THats all the compensation I want or need.
fine. but what you are really saying that that is all the
compensation that anyone has the right to want or need.
Yes, I am. You own the copy of the painting you made. You sold it. Its no
longer yours. Feel free to make another one, but you have no right to try
and stop me from doing the same. Art does not and should not belong to one
person- not even its creator. Art is part of our cultural heritage, part of
what it is to be human. It belongs to all the people.
The original founders believed just this. THe idea of a limited copyright
was to encourage more art to be created due to increasing the short term
profitsis, and the registration requirement ensured that this heritage would
not be lost. It is not about some nebulous "rights" you claim a creator has
(despite the fact no other object creator has those rights)- the US has
repeatedly rejected the concept of "moral rights of the creator", and in
fact vetoed that term from appearing in the Berne convention. The current
system does not encourage new quality art to be created, and the inability
to make copies assures us that all but a small percentage of creations are
lost to history. In an age where digital replication should make the
information available for all time, this is reprehensible. And without the
registration requirement, we can't even count on the library of congress
keeping archival copies.
Copyright today does not follow the guidelines of the founding fathers, and
no longer follows the social contract under which it was created. It needs
to be fixed or dropped, pronto. And I firmly believe that if Jefferson et
al were here today, they'd be leading the charge to do it.
Gabe
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
