Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
There is, IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with existing copyright laws.
|
Harry, I do have problems with existing copyright law. And I'll sum it up quite bluntly. Non-creating entities treat copyright as perpetual real property (which it is not and never has been - not in the US <nor> in the UK <nor> anywhere else in the world). And they have the clout to (usually) get what they want. It would already be the case is the US, except our constitution <explicitly> bans time unlimited copyright. So those entities fall back on the concept of perpetually extending copyright every time it approaches expiration for the oldest items. Over and over and over.
Yes, The UK voted down an extension of copyright. But let me ask you a question. Why was it being considered in the first place? Was there a huge groundswell for more restrictive copyright? And let me ask another question. Why are the Brussel bureaucrats suddenly look at "harmonizing" copyrights for the EU? And a third question, if the EU were to extend copyright for all the EU, would not Britain be required to enforce EU regulations, even though the UK law was less restrictive?
As a cynic might say - follow the money. I still have a 1 oz gold saying the the EU "harmonization" is just going to be a sneak extension of the Berne convention. And that's flat out morally wrong. The purpose of copyright was to encourage the creation of new works by granting a monopoly to the individual creator(s) - and neither dead people <or> corporate entities create anything.