XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Jim Gysin wrote:   
   > Greg Goss sent the following on 10/27/2009 10:56 PM:   
   >> Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   >>>> Twenty-eight years   
   >>>> is long enough.   
   >>> Why?  Because you say so?   
   >>   
   >> Society is granting a special monopoly.  Society gets to define the   
   >> terms of that monopoly.   
   >   
   > The artist is creating a special work of art.  The artist gets to define   
   > the terms of access to that art.   
      
   Why? Justify this. Most societies throughout history got on fine without   
   giving artists any special privilege of control of downstream uses of   
   copies of their art.   
      
   > Beyond that, as I say elsewhere, I don't agree that it's a "monopoly"   
   > any more than my ownership of a car is a "monopoly" that keeps others   
   > from buying their own cars anytime they want to do so.   
      
   You own your car. I still get to do as I please with my computer behind   
   closed doors.   
      
   You "own" your intellectual output. Some things I do with my computer   
   are now "infringing" your "rights" somehow even though you're not   
   actually involved and wouldn't even know about it unless you became a   
   peeping Tom.   
      
   Clearly there's a big difference. One is a true property right. The   
   other is a kind of negative property right, a privilege to negate part   
   of the property rights of others.   
      
   >> The founders of the nation came up with a   
   >> number.  Since then, people live longer, so the number was boosted a   
   >> bit (in my opinion) or not (in SFTV's opinion.  But we, as members of   
   >> our society, put forth our opinions.  If enough people agree, that   
   >> becomes the law, which forms the foundations of the commercial   
   >> contracts.   
   >>   
   >> So, yeah.  Because we say so.  If enough people agree with us.   
   >> Twenty-eight years is not enough?  105 years is not enough?  Why?   
   >> Because YOU say so?   
   >   
   > At all times, I would leave the decision up to the person or persons who   
   > currently own the rights to it.  I wouldn't presume to tell that person   
   > how long that should be, just as I don't accept your attempt to presume   
   > to do so.   
      
   But you would presume to override the Constitution and deny the wishes   
   of the Founding Fathers that any so-called "intellectual property" grant   
   was for "limited times"?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)