XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   Thanatos wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  Anim8rFSK  wrote:   
   >   
   >> In article ,   
   >>  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 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.   
   >> The architect might well though; the carpenter is work for hire.   
   >   
   > I'll admit I'm not all that familiar with the architecture trade but I   
   > can't believe that if I hire someone to design a house for me, I have to   
   > pay a continuing royalty to the guy forever just for using it, as does   
   > anyone to whom I subsequently sell it.   
      
   You hiring them to design the house for you means that the end results   
   belong to you.  Its "work for hire" again.   
      
   --   
   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)