Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
I merely observe. The main copyright law has been extended twice, both times by heavy lobbying by from very rich middlemen. There are no signs that the lobbying for extention has stopped, one was granted for musical performances as recently as 2009 (from 2047 to 2067). Many authors cheerfully go along with that lobbying, as least as portrayed on this website. Still, I undoubtably painted with too broad of a brush. Chalk that up to frustration.
I do state that if a current author is not making a living at writing, and considers money important, (and those are two ifs) then I do suggest that said author go do something else that makes him or her more money. The economic realities of being an author should be studied before one chooses to become one, just like any other profession. To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant. Inventors have more direct impact on society, but they make do with much less protection and at a much higher price to obtain it. I don't here drumbeat screams about how badly they are being treated.
|
I don't chalk it up to frustration, I'd apply arjaybe's "deliberately mis-construing" description. Every post wants to put their own spin on what was said before, so you tell us things like: "The Creators standpoint is simple. I made it, I own it. I control it. Now and forever." - and yet that is not what has been said. You repeat "To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant." and yet never acknowledge that these "special privileges" (if, indeed they are so special, which I have questioned previously) are indeed open to everyone in society, it's part of how copyright works. Discussion of patents has been deliberately limited because although the "special privileges" are similar in nature, it is quite a different subject - if you want to hear the drumbeat screams I could send you to some other forums.
Despite much of the rhetoric you have been spouting, I don't actually get the impression that you are advocating that copyright should be dropped altogether (even though you find the privileges "repugnant"). In one of your posts you say "From my perspective, 56 years has proven to be adequate for the purpose," and that doesn't put us that far apart.
Anything less than 20 to 30 years will definitely have an impact on what is produced. Going far above 50 years is a case of diminishing returns. Personally I support the "life plus" version, because that allows an author to continue building on their collection without interference for their entire career (thinking Agatha Christie and similar here). So anything from life plus 30 to life plus 50 seems a reasonable compromise to me.