Quote:
Originally Posted by usuallee
Aww poor, poor Roger Daltrey :-( [...]
However, this excessive copyright terms nonsense is the one aspect of the debate that makes me waver, for older stuff. I guess I wouldn't feel too badly about the piracy of Beatles or The Who albums, William Faulkner novels, or old Disney movies at this point.
|
So you feel entitled to have anything older than 40(?) years for free? (I'm assuming you're not talking about the newer albums of The Who.)
It's all very well to get sarcastic about how little the famous few need the money, but understand that copyright isn't really about them - if there were fees involved in extending copyright then they could certainly afford to pay them. Copyright is a much bigger topic than a few famous people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
Significance? That was not the class of work we discussed. But not being able to find the copyright holder must be as common now as it has been before.
|
Well, I was talking about the "public interest" - if the public is interested then I would consider that (at least potentially) significant. If there is no interest then availability wouldn't seem to be much of an issue.
Why do you think losing the copyright holder must be as common as before? It seems to me that our record keeping has improved considerably in the last hundred years or so.