XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Ian Galbraith sent the following on 10/27/2009 9:06 PM:   
   > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:35:36 -0500, Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >   
   >> Ian Galbraith sent the following on 10/26/2009 10:21 PM:   
   > [snip]   
   >   
   >>> I don't see how wanting to set a reasonable time limit on copyright is   
   >>> selfish, self serving and stealing.   
   >> Shouldn't the creator be the one to decide what is a reasonable time limit?   
   >   
   > And the answer would be eternally then. Why should his heirs benefit from   
   > something they had no hand in creating?   
      
   Because it's his call.  And anyone who doesn't want to support his heirs   
   is free to avoid his work.  In this arrangement, everyone is *free* to   
   make their own choices, whereas thuggery (judicial or otherwise)   
   intended to take away his right to the fruits of his own creations is   
   anything *but* free or noble.   
      
   >> But to answer your question, it is selfish and self-serving because it   
   >> puts people in a position to get something for free that they would   
   >> otherwise have to purchase if they wanted to obtain it legally, and it's   
   >> painfully obvious that they don't want to pay for it.   
   >   
   > No-one in this thread is saying get rid of copyright.   
      
   You're wrong there.   
      
   > By the time its out   
   > of copyright there are other considerations like allowing others to use   
   > cultural icons to produce their own culturally enriching works and   
   > allowing competitive forces to ensure the works in question are still   
   > available in some form.   
      
   If their new works can't stand on their own and need to benefit from the   
   work of others who preceded them, then they should pay for the right to   
   the predecessor's work, as their own work is obviously not good enough.   
     Or, they're once again free to use different and new characters and   
   hope that they strike gold of their own.   
      
   >>> Frankly I think the opposite is true,   
   >>> are you really trying to claim that Disney isn't greedy?   
   >> Disney is mo more or less greedy than anyone else, and their greed is   
   >> centered around wanting to protect *their* assets--things that they have   
   >> created or developed legally   
   >   
   > But under your scheme a large number of major Disney productions of the   
   > last few years are using assets that would have been copyrighted and   
   > therefore illegal.   
      
   If they didn't get the voluntary permission of the owners of the   
   copyright, yes.   
      
   > As for Disney's original assets the actual creators   
   > are long since dead.   
      
   In my view, the person who creates something new is the only one who   
   should be deciding who should benefit from it after he's gone.  And if   
   others don't like the fact that some snotty heir (and I don't deny that   
   there are snotty heirs out there) is living off of a dead relative, then   
   they're free to not support those snotty heirs.  Freedom is a wonderful   
   thing.   
      
   >> --whereas the greed of some in this thread   
   >> is centered around wanting something for nothing.   
      
   I'm not sure if it's in *this* thread, but it's here.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)