XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Invid Fan wrote:   
   > In article <4ae77bd6$0$1622$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Dimensional   
   > Traveler  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Thanatos wrote:   
   >>> In article ,   
   >>>  Anim8rFSK  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> In article ,   
   >>>>  Thanatos  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>  Anim8rFSK  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> In article <1qs764dvqwjo8$.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.   
   >   
   > However, anyone wanting to build an identical house would have to pay   
   > you (or the architect if he retained the rights) for the right to do   
   > so.   
      
   Which is silly, as I explained in another post. True, for now, but silly.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)