On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 13:38, District Webmaster wrote: > I'll go as far as to say I don't see why an individual's > copyright shouldn't last a lifetime (and no further). People can > talk about societal benefit all they want, but I don't see why > anybody but you should be entitled to your hard work. If you > choose to give it away or share it, go ahead -- or if you choose > to bury it under a rock, go ahead. Nobody created it but you, > nobody should control it but you. There should be no freeloaders.
Saying "nobody created it but you" is wrong. The whole point of copyright is that we all live in a society, not a vacuum.. Every creator has benefited from countless others, whether they realize it or not. Copyright's sole purpose is to further the public domain, not to create a cash cow for an artist. By setting reasonable limits like the original 14 years, artists have a chance to recoup costs and make a buck but aren't allow to rest on their laurels. Either put out or go work at McDonalds. My latest theory is for a shortish initial term (10-20 years) with a few renewable shorter (~5 years) extensions for a non-trivial but non-substantial fee, ie. more than a buck but less than a fortune. That would encourage artists to continue creating works, but leaving open the reward for a really great creation. Corey ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
