XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   Thanatos wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Anim8rFSK  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article <1qs764dvqwjo8$.4ex25lekc7wc.dlg@40tude.net>,   
   >>  Ian Galbraith  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:09:41 -0500, Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> Anim8rFSK sent the following on 10/26/2009 4:17 PM:   
   >>> [snip]   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Yeah, I fail to see how society benefits by non creatives   
   >>>>> being able to steal other's work.   
   >>>> We probably both already know that it has nothing to do   
   >>>> with benefiting  society and everything to do with benefiting   
   >>>> the selfish and self-serving SFTV_troys and Frank Franks   
   >>>> of the world.   
   >>> I don't see how wanting to set a reasonable time limit   
   >>> on copyright is selfish, self serving and stealing. Frankly   
   >>> I think the opposite is true, are you really trying to claim   
   >>> that Disney isn't greedy?   
   >> Why shouldn't they be greedy?  They invented the stuff.   
   >   
   > Well, if that position is taken to its ultimate conclusion, the public   
   > domain would cease to exist and even things like Santa Claus and   
   > Beethoven's symphonies would still be under copyright.   
   >   
   > When the author (the guy who invented the stuff) is long dead, and his   
   > heirs (the ones who invented nothing) are still wielding copyright like   
   > a club, something's wrong.   
   >   
   > And really, why should creative types have a fundamental right to get   
   > paid over and over again for their work forever ad infinitum while the   
   > rest of us only get paid for own work once? When a carpenter builds a   
   > house, he gets paid for the work, then moves on. He doesn't retain   
   > ownership interest in the house and get paid every time someone looks at   
   > it, uses it, lives in it, or sells it.   
      
   If he builds it on his own time, with materials he bought, on land he   
   owns, then yes he does retain ownership until he sells it.   
      
   If he was hired to do work for someone else with materials they paid   
   for, then no he isn't the owner.   
      
   Seems simple enough to me.  Same thing applies to engineers and such.   
   Do the work on the company's time in their offices using their assets   
   and resources and the results belong to the company.  Do it on your own,   
   unpaid, time at home without someone else's support and the results   
   belong to you.   
      
   --   
   7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths   
   Myths - Will - Fall!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)