At 10:44 AM 10/30/98 -0600, you wrote: >This is an exchange between my brother and myself. My brother is a >bit of a libertarian Republican who doesn't feel that the extension of >the copyright laws are a big deal. His response to the report I just >posted is below, followed by my response to him. > >If anyone has any ideas on how to sharpen or extend my argument (or >can point out flaws/weaknesses), I'd appreciate it. > >Also, why the hell didn't we know about this earlier? We should have >been protesting this. Who's watching the criminals in Washington? > One point is suggested by the proposed amendment that was dropped: if copyright protection is extended, the people who produced the product should also benefit. After all, it wasn't the _Disney Corporation_ that invented the "Ariel" persona in the movie "Little Mermaid." It was one of their creative staff who I bet gets no residuals at all. (I didn't stick to the Mickey example, because I think that bastard Walt Disney invented the Mouse.) Similarly, it's engineers and scientists who develop new products and production techniques and computer software -- but the corporation gets the patent. The actual benefitors from a patent, copyright, or trademark are usually only those who provided the finance -- not the ones who did the work, sweated the sweat, etc. That's capitalism. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
