XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 11:29 AM:   
   > Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >> Frank Frank sent the following on 10/28/2009 4:11 AM:   
   >>> Jim Gysin wrote:   
   >>>> Dr Nancy's Sweetie sent the following on 10/26/2009 8:41 PM:   
   >>>>> Somebody wrote, of copyrights:   
   >>>>>> The current 105 year span (likely to be expanded again by Disney   
   >>>>>> lobbying) is ridiculous.   
   >>>>> "Jim Gysin " replied:   
   >>>>>> Why?  Because it's not what you want?   
   >>>>> The original justification is "to promote the progress of science and   
   >>>>> useful arts", and I don't think a copyright term longer than the   
   >>>>> average life expectancy does that.   
   >>>> And FWIW, promoting progress wasn't the *only* original   
   >>>> "justification," either.   
   >>> It's the only one stated in the Constitution.   
   >> I didn't suggest otherwise.   
   >   
   > So you concede that it's the only original justification now? Good.   
      
   No, I only concede that it's the only original justification that was   
   spelled out in the Constitution.  Please try to keep up.   
      
   >>>>> I think the current copyright terms do the exact opposite: they   
   >>>>> undermine creativity and useful arts.  Consider that Disney's animation   
   >>>>> studio had produced drek for years, and the only way they were able to   
   >>>>> rejuvenate themselves was to buy Pixar and let the Pixar people run the   
   >>>>> place.  They hadn't had a decent original idea in years, because they   
   >>>>> didn't NEED to: they are still profiting off Walt Disney's original   
   >>>>> work, even though he's been dead for over 40 years.   
   >>>> Is there a law that requires them to generate new ideas on a regular   
   >>>> basis?  Does society have a "right" to expect it out of them?  Does   
   >>>> society have some sort of claim on them?   
   >>> It doesn't seem unreasonable to require them to generate new ideas on   
   >>> a regular basis IN ORDER TO GET PAID FOR IDEA-GENERATION ON A REGULAR   
   >>> BASIS.   
   >>>   
   >>> If they want to quit, they can go ahead but they should then have to   
   >>> find another line of work to bring home the bacon.   
   >> Which is exactly what pirates and freeloaders and parasites are already   
   >> encouraging artists to do.   
   >   
   > No, they are not.   
      
   Another excellent and detailed rebuttal!  Good work, Seamus!   
      
   >> I'm glad that you have a semblance of an understanding of disincentives.   
   >   
   > It's a shame you don't. These so-called "parasites" are actually   
   > commensal -- they neither help nor harm the host.   
      
   The concept of forcing artists to settle for "getting by" (your words,   
   in a different post) and touring to make up for lost cash so that you   
   can have their music for free is the very definition of a parasite, Seamus.   
      
   And since the rest of your post is pretty much just a repeat of this   
   denial, I'll go ahead and snip it.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)