Quote:
Originally Posted by Trenien
It does. And I feel it's getting in the way much more than you appear to believe. For once, if you confuse both words, you tend to react to changes (or the idea of changes) to one the way you would to changes to the other.
|
Understood. Dropping the use of property won't alter my arguments or the points I'm trying to make.
Quote:
|
Some control. Because if you had complete control, you'd need a thought police ("Hey you! It's the latest Sting song you've sung under the shower this morning. Fork the money over if you don't want to go to jail!"). We're not there, yet.
|
Yes.
Some control. But control nonetheless. And applicable laws are likely to impose some limitations on my control, regardless of what I have control over.
Quote:
I already answered the first question: I've become an anti-copyright proponent, but in the spirit of compromise, I'd settle for a hard 15-20 years period, or until the death of the author, whichever comes first.
As to the second question. That one will take a bit longer to answer to.
<...>
|
I don't blame you, and I agree.
But I see two things of significance in your reasons for objecting to copyright. Please tell me if I take your meaning correctly.
The first is that your objection doesn't seem to be to copyright per se: it's to the efforts of corporate entities to extend and manipulate copyright to insure exclusive access to and control over creations protected by copyright. Your solution seems to be "abolish copyright"
The second seems to be that the current laws prevent your access to works, because they are still under copyright, whereas they wouldn't be if the laws remained as they had been written originally.
Do I correctly understand you?
______
Dennis