XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: david@block.net   
      
   On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:56:47 -0500, Jim Gysin    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >David Johnston sent the following on 10/28/2009 5:49 PM:   
   >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:55:33 -0500, Jim Gysin    
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> SFTV_troy sent the following on 10/25/2009 5:11 PM:   
   >>>> On Oct 25, 6:01 am, aemeijers  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Shrug. If they don't wanna sell, you have no right to buy. May be   
   >>>>> annoying, but hardly evil, and they are well within their rights.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is why copyright needs to be shortened to 28 years as was true in   
   >>>> the first U.S. Copyright Act of 1790.  Let culture be free.   
   >>> If it's freedom you seek, I'm pretty sure that artists are already free   
   >>> to forfeit their intellectual property rights any time they want to.  Of   
   >>> course, they're also free to earn a living from their creativity if they   
   >>> so choose.  And in return, you're free to respect their respective choices.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Besides   
   >>>> there is not natural right to an idea.  Nature abhors the very idea of   
   >>>> keeping thoughts confined.  As I can use my candle to light your   
   >>>> candle, without diminishing my own light, so too can ideas be shared.   
   >>> But someone had to have lit the first candle, or you and all of your ilk   
   >>> would still be sitting in the dark, waiting for your chance to be   
   >>> parasitic with regard to the light.   
   >>>   
   >>>> The current 105 year span (likely to be expanded again by Disney   
   >>>> lobbying) is ridiculous.   
   >>> Why?  Because it's not what you want?   
   >>   
   >> Because it isn't in the best interests of either the audience, or the   
   >> original creators, seeing as how it benefits neither of them to have   
   >> the creations permanently barred from use.   
   >   
   >It's most definitely in the interests of the original creators   
      
   Long dead men have no interests.   
      
      
    and the   
   >line of heirs that they set in motion,   
      
   I see no particular reason why we should be concerned about the   
   interests of rights holders who had nothing to do with the creation of   
   the works in question   
      
   and that's all that counts in my   
   >book.   
   >   
   >As for any benefit, there is no inherent right to any such benefit, and   
   >that's ignoring the fact that you seem to be saying that it's a benefit   
   >that you wouldn't be willing to pay for in the first place.  Otherwise,   
   >if you were willing to pay for access to it, why complain about   
   >copyright protection in the first place?   
      
   Why, because I haven't been talking about paying for, or not paying   
   for anything in the first place.  I've been talking about using or not   
   being able to use characters and settings in new works.  "Piracy" is   
   not the only issue associated with copyright.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)