Quote:
Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel
harry, please, let's try to stay reasonable and not mix everything up. i absolutely support authors being paid for sales of their books. but the whole (original) principle of copyright is to allow the author to profit from books they publish and therefore encourage them to continue to write. the current copyright of "life + 70 years" goes FAR beyond that (no author keeps writing for 70 years after they die...) and is in fact simply a greedy ploy on the part of corporations (disney...) to "lock up" ideas so they can keep making money off them. i cannot support that.
|
An author's income from his work forms his "estate". Suppose an author is married, and dies; is there really anything wrong with their wife/husband and children being able to continue receiving income from the sale of the author's books? If the person had bought shares in a company, they could be passed on in the author's will (and shares are just as "ephemeral" as "rights" to a book). Why single out "intellectual" work as not been permitted to benefit the dependents of the author? It just seems wholy unreasonable to me.
Quote:
|
and again, before you blindly attack the Pirat Parti, please go to the source and see what they actually have to say. from your statements, you clearly have not done that, so you really can't make an informed judgement of them.
|
OK, I've looked at it. They may be "technically" a political party, but they aren't REALLY one - they're a single-issue pressure group. They have no policy whatsoever on taxation, defence, education, health, or any other issue that's necessary to run a country. It would be highly irresponsible to want such a pressure group to come to power, IMHO. Do you really think that they are capable of running a country?
Quote:
|
i do not like the idea of ISPs, which are private companies and in no way competent for the task, to be given powers of "policing" my traffic. my privacy is important to me, so on principle alone i don't want that, and that's not to mention the very very real possibilities that opens up for misuse, abuse, accidents, mistakes, and other irritations (or significantly worse) to me, the end user. this is a step in the wrong direction. i don't want to start down this path, so regardless of how innocuous you may think this is, i think it's a very dangerous beginning.
|
Do you think that the government should do it instead? The whole point of laws is that they are monitored and enforced centrally. As things stand, if I, as an author, find one of my books illegally offered for upload on a BT site, I have absolutely no "power" to discover who it is that's committing the crime. Surely my rights to prosecute a criminal should be considered more important than protecting the "anonymity" of the criminal, shouldn't they? As things stand, these criminals are virtually immune from being tracked down, and they know it!