View Single Post
Old 07-12-2008, 02:58 PM   #37
axel77
Fanatic
axel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-booksaxel77 has learned how to read e-books
 
Posts: 584
Karma: 914
Join Date: Mar 2008
Device: iliad
Quote:
Originally Posted by pshrynk View Post
I propose a different method. I was going to say "new" but there really is nothing new under the sun, so this has probably been tried before.

an indivdual produces something, say a book. There is copyright on that book for 40 years, as outlined in the JBU article.

Then, if that book is so huge that a corporate entitiy needs to own it forever, they pay a large, painful sum to an international fund that polices copyright to own that piece of work forever. Maybe even a yearly, painful sum.

That way, artists can "own" their own work for long enough to benefit from it and Disney can keep the Rat all to itself in perpetuity without screwing up the protections afforded to individuals trying to make art for the rest of us.
This is not good. At some point our "data" we have as society starts to become what makes us a society. Think of aristotele, da vinci, mozart, newton, einstein, etc.

No hugh summ whatsover should enable one person to own "identy" of society.

Copyright was always as its origin a limited grant to encorage people to share their work openly without fear of it to be copied.
axel77 is offline   Reply With Quote