|
Steve,
When I said <we>, I was looking at the entire world. After all, (within linguistic limitations (yes, and sometimes government limitation, i.e. China)), on the internet one can access information (i.e. digital content) anywhere in the world. It may be done in a legal framework, or not. I am not stating that doing things in an illegal framework is good, (see my other posts) - but there is a large contingent of people in the world who don't wish to follow such niceties. But both combined already form a large and vibrant digital economy. (I use economy in a broad sense, not just in a limited money sense. Look at linux, for example. It was not built on the profit motive (sic), but has become a major digital entity, and legally.) The digital economy is here, and it's real, <now> even if major parts of it don't follow current legalities.
That's why I found the Ms. Prager's quote so funny. She was stating the EU must make an action before (prelude to) a vibrant digital enconomy being able to come into existance. (Ignoring the current vibrant digital economic reality.) It's as if an elephant doesn't exist until a government announces it is real, all the while it is standing on your foot! (Ask MPAA, RIAA, et.al.)
As for my views on copyright see thread 17938 "interesting NYT article on 'copyright morality' " post 252. That's easier that my rehashing it here. You might also think over the fact that in the US, patent is only 20 years, while copyright is life + 95 (70 for current works). Why is one so much more valuable that the other? Both are products of a creative mind.
Do I see different length copyright laws as an impediment to the digital economy. No. The only people who think it is are governments (and their legal servants.), and those people with a vested interest in the status quo (pre-digital age).
As to my corporeal location - I'm a native Texan residing in Texas.
|