Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Actually, I would make that trade. I agree that the current copyright term is too long. On the other hand, 34 years may be a bit short( life expectancy in in the 1780s was a little bit less than it is now). I'm Ok with 70 years or life of the author plus 20, whichever comes last. On the other hand, I agree that DRM could be improved. There should be a migration path if there is any change in DRM and you should be able to migrate your library to new devices. That's perfectly achievable under DRM.
Unfortunately, the digerati hand wave away the concerns of bestselling authors and publishers and demand unconditional surrender of their IP rights. Not surprisingly, the authors aren't interested.
K Street commando? I wish. Unfortunately, I'm just interested in reading good books and understand that the authors that produce them don't like being ripped off and won't continue working if they aren't protected from being ripped off. I notice that you and others have said not one word about how authors and publishers can have their rights protected. I guess you don't give a damn about that.
|
What rights? I am
not joking. This is where this debate always falls down. I.P., as it is currently thought of,
did not exist before the Statue of Anne in 1714 in England. It's not in any of the world's sacred writings, it's not listed as one of the "natural rights" of Man. Despite the label,
it's not property!
It's a
grant by the public to encourage the production of new works by creating a
limited monopoly. Baldly practical, and the terms are set to the advantage of public,
not the creator. A balancing act between offering just enough for the creation of works and giving away too much of the public's rights.
Everybody here is fully aware of this, we often disagree about the details.
As to the creators...Just how much of the gross do they get, and how much goes to the corporate publisher. When you seriously consider that, then you may see why "encouraging the creator" doesn't cut as much ice here as you think it should. It's the Corporate Entity that benefits the most and they want every last cent until, as Jack Valenti pithily said "for forever minus one day".
These "Corporate Entities" have so skewed the process that they no longer have any credibility with the "digeratti", who have responded with civil disobedience. They have the means, which are readily and cheaply available, and have lost the respect for the other side through these abusive laws.
Read Macauley on copyright. He summed it up neatly in 1842. An we are seeing it played out today....