[Greg Anos]

The phrase from my previous post should have been expanded. Please let me revise and expand my remarks...

"To me, the idea that being an author grants a person special priviledges above everybody else in society, I find repugnant."

Let me go into more detail. I'll give two examples.

Example #1. I'm a CEO for a huge company, my compensation package is a large salary, a much larger incentive bonus, a rich deferred pension, stock options, and restricted (deferred) stock. While much of my compenation is deferred to a later date, it is earned at the current time, for current labor. Furthermore, it is fixed, at the time the labor is being performed.

Example #2. I am a copyright creator. I spend 3 years, without pay, writing a book that becomes a perennial bestseller. At the time I published it, copyright is defined as 56 years.

First of all, both people are free to plan for their own future, by taking the profits of their labor, and investing it as they so choose. Those investments are free to be passed along to any heirs and assigns, or they may expire with the person's death (say the person buys an annuity, which is merely a private pension. It would expire with the person's death). If they spend it all along the way, that's their heirs and assigns woe.

Now Example #1 dies. The pension he earned as part of his/her compensation package ends when he/she does, leaving any heirs cut off for any further benefits from it. Those were the terms of the pension. They are legally unaltereable, nor would anybody claim otherwise.

Now Example #2 dies. For sake of argument, copyright creator dies exactly 56 years after his copyright was issued. He/she bought some annuities with his/her profits. The annuities expire (just like pensions). Once again, they are legally unaltereable, nor would anybody claim otherwise. What about the copyrights?

They should expire as well, as their duration has completed.


But wait! The creator was having organization X produce the copies of this perennial bestseller. Organization X will lose their guaranteed profit from the perennial bestseller. This is considered unfair by organization X. Organization X lobbys the government for an extension of copyright to maintain their profits on the perennial bestseller.

Is this right? Fair? Moral? In my opinion - <BLEEP> NO! Everybody knew the terms, everybody agreed to them upon the release of the copyright creator's work. They all should be held to them, just the same as if they were pensions or annuities. I find this extending morally repugnant, and a priviledge over and above those that anybody else in society gets. Not ever creators of other forms of "intellectual property" get them. From my perspective, it's theft, every bit as much as "piracy". Only this "piracy" is legally sanctioned. Who is being stolen from? We, the public. We, the public, granted the copyright, and it's terms and conditions, and they should be held to.