XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   Thanatos wrote:   
   > In article <4ae720d6$0$1636$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,   
   >  Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Thanatos wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>>  Anim8rFSK  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> In article <1qs764dvqwjo8$.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.   
   >   
   > But he only gets to sell it once. He doesn't have the right to be paid   
   > over and over and over again for it. He doesn't retain a property right   
   > in the house that supersedes the rights of the people to whom he sells   
   > it.   
      
   He does if he can talk them in to signing that contract.  Its just not   
   the default for house sales.   
      
   There's also the fact that building another house that's an exact   
   duplicate generally doesn't drastically reduce the value of the first house.   
      
   --   
   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)