XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Ian Galbraith sent the following on 10/28/2009 7:44 PM:   
   > 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.   
      
   Fair enough, but it *is* thuggery to want to force an artist to accept   
   what you deem to be "reasonable."   
      
   > 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.   
      
   No, I'm just saying that the creator (or the current person or entity in   
      a deceased creator's beneficiary chain) should be the only one   
   deciding what is "reasonable."   
      
   > Otherwise you're saying that the legislators and the   
   > judiciary are pro piracy.   
      
   Again, I'm willing to accept a plea bargain to pro-thuggery for those   
   who are just pushing to define "reasonable" for others.   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)