Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
I have been ignoring this thread due to the urge to write an incredibly rude reply regarding repetitiveness and tedium  Not to you of course.
I am not really up on US/UK copyright law and its changes, and while I see nothing wrong with 42-52 years after publication I still stand by my opinion that the current copyright laws do not measurably harm everyone else but the creators/copyright holders.
Sure they cannot use others works as they wish, but how could they use them if they hadn't been written/published. Lot of things are not published which could help society and lot of things are published which could harm society. I see copyright playing a very insignificant role in the overall picture except that it encourages publication. Perhaps you (or someone else) can give me a very long list of works that were suppressed due to copyright violations that would have benefitted society at large greatly.
Helen |
Helen, it depends on your definition of "supressed". Any work, that is out of print, currently, and after the the term under which it would have gone into the public domain, I would consider "supressed".
Let me try to express myself a little more clearly. Book "x" published in the US in 1926, would have gone into the public after 56 years or 1983. It was out of print by 1950. After 1982 I would consider it "suppressed", as the owner of the copyright would not print it, but no one else could, due to copyright extension.
Is that clear enough. (I'm not being snarky, I'm just wanting to make certain I'm communicating. I'll try again if it isn't clear.)