XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: me@privacy.net   
      
   On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:39:01 -0500, Jim Gysin wrote:   
      
   > trag sent the following on 10/28/2009 12:31 PM:   
   [snip]   
      
   >> No, because society already paid the creator for the work by granting   
   >> the creator a limited monopoly.  When the monopoly runs out, society   
   >> has finished paying and anyone in society may benefit thereafter.   
   >> That's the deal.   And that was the intent in the constitution.  It   
   >> wasn't welfare for anyone who could cop a copyright.   It was meant to   
   >> encourage active creation for society's benefit.   The interest of the   
   >> creators is not even a consideration in the stated intent.   
   >   
   > There's obviously a set of "monopoly" talking points circulating on the   
   > pro-piracy networks.   
      
   Again its not pro piracy to want copyright for a reasonable limited   
   period. You seem to think this is an either/or argument, that if one   
   doesn't want eternal copyright then one is pro piracy, which is simply   
   not the case. Otherwise you're saying that the legislators and the   
   judiciary are pro piracy.   
      
   --   
   "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."   
   - Philip K. Dick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)