XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: jimgysin@geemail.com   
      
   Frank Frank sent the following on 10/29/2009 10:25 AM:   
   > 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.   
      
   Oh, sure.  The "societies" got along just fine as they benefited from   
   the artists that they starved at the same time.  It may have escaped   
   your notice that many artists of the past in copyright-free times died   
   penniless while others were free to enjoy the fruits of their labor.   
   Yeah, that sounds "fine" to me.   
      
   >> 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 can't use your computer to steal my car.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   What a pretty bow!   
      
   >>> 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"?   
      
   You need another vocabulary lesson.  This time, look up "limited."   
      
   Beyond that, I'm not the one who would presume to override the   
   Constitution in this regard; *you* are, as you have freely admitted   
   several times at least.  Or do you also need to look up the difference   
   between "amend" and "override" while you're at it?   
      
   --   
   Jim Gysin   
   Waukesha, WI   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)