XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net   
      
   In article ,   
    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.   
      
   Not for using it, but for reusing it, yeah.   
      
   --   
   Stargate Universe SGU:  It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!   
   It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,   
   fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.   
   Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)