----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Mayhar" <frank at exit.com> > Scott Ingram wrote: > > [Most of the rant elided, since it can more or less be summarized as:] > > You all seem so concerned that people may make money off their own hard > > work. I've yet to see any CONCRETE examples of how this hurts anyone..aside > > from those who wish to steal from creators and benefiting off of their years > > of hard work and self-promotion. > > > > Why are you so afraid that people will prosper? This NOT a zero-sum game! > > Well, I dunno about others, but _I'm_ pissed off that Mickey Mouse (in the > form Disney animated as "Steamboat Willie") won't go into the public domain > next year, as it should. Copyright was for life plus 14 years, then Congress > extended that to 28 years. Then in 1976 they extended it to 50 years and in > '97 again to 70 years. > > "Perpetual copyright on the installment plan." > > Read > http://www.law.asu.edu/HomePages/Karjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/what.htm l > for some real information about the topic. >From the above link: "According to a Wall Street Journal article of October 1997, heirs and assignees of creative composers from the 1920's have already enjoyed millions of dollars of extra royalty income as a result of that extension. The 1998 term extension provides these noncreative recipients with another 20 years of such royalties, all paid out of the pockets of the public. " First of all, if I create something of lasting value, I sure as hell want the rights to stay with my heirs as long as possible. I'm sure the general public is very nice and all, but I really prefer my own family over strangers off the street. And if I did prefer strangers over the general public, I'd sign papers to relinquish my rights or I'd sign them over to the charity of my choice. Second, I hold exception to "out of the pockets of the public". Some of you seem to have some sort of blind hatred of, or prejudice against, corporations. I really don't know why, after all, they have to pay royalties as well. Also, this money isn't STOLEN from the public or taken from their pockets against their will. The public pays the royalties in return for the pleasure of seeing a play or hearing music. Would the music/play/work of art be more dearly loved if it was free to all? I doubt it. > Yeah, people are prospering under the current laws, but it the problem is that > the ones that are prospering the most are the _heirs_ of those who got the > copyrights in the first place. Did you know that as of the passage of the > Sonny Bono Copyright Act in 1997, _nothing_ will go into the public domain > for twenty years? Nothing. See my above comment. Honestly, I'd rather have my heirs benefit than total strangers or some company in Hong Kong pumping out t-shirts with my characters/quotes on them. > People build on the stuff that went before. Steve should of course be > safe, but how safe should Disney's works be; the man has been in the ground > for almost fifty years! Is it really hurting you that you can't make Mickey Mouse t-shirts, or publish your depictions of Minnie Mouse in lewd positions? The Disney corporation has been working with, promoting, developing, and becoming identified with, Mickey Mouse for a long long time. I see no good reason that other businesses should benefit from this hard work to the detriment of Disney shareholders.... some of whom may be mail-list members... or the parents of same. (AFAIK, neither I or my parents own stock in Disney) -Scott