>Well, for one thing, it gives an incentice to create right on up to
>someone's deathbed--their IP will still be valuabe to their estate for years
>after their death.
You misunderstood completely.
The copyright was extended retroactively -- there's no need for an
incentive for dead people like Walt Disney to create, because they are
already dead. They aren't creating anything but worm food. The
incentives are for people who are still living. The estate, obviously,
wants Walt's rights extended so they can continue leaching off of it, but
that's outside the constitutional intentions of copyright.
On 6/20/00 2:34 PM, Doug Meerschaert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
>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.
The purpose of copyright and trademark is laid down in the Constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
The "limited time" clause has indeed been being ignored, particularly
with respect to copyright terms that exceed twice the productive lifetime
of an aged artist.
>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. When the buisness-term becomes
>hundreds of years, then it gets rediculous.
That might be a useful argument if copyright was dated from date of
creation. It's from date of death, as in Walt Disney's copyrights will
expire 90 years after the day he shuffled off this mortal coil.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to live long enough to see your works become public
domain by copyright expiration.
--
Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
CMC Tech Support Manager
"Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill?" -- Cypher
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
