----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Mayhar" <frank at exit.com> > Sigh. Scott, do you know who Eric Eldred is? Do you have any idea of just > _why_ he (among others) is challenging the Sonny Bono Act? I'll give you a > hint: It's not to "pump out t-shirts" with Mickey Mouse on them. (In fact, > it doesn't have anything to do with Disney at all, Disney is just the > company that financed the Bono Act.) I did a google search for Eldred. Interesting. The result of him winning his case, however, would enable people to pump out t-shirts...as well as erect educational websites. I guess my only point is to make sure that people are cursing Disney because they're wrong... not because they're 'an evil corporation'. After all the future t-shirt makers may be corporations too. > Disney has built on the works of the past. Cinderella, Treasure Island, > The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, on and on and on. All in the > public domain, none of which they had to pay a dime in royalties for. > And yet, if things continue the way they are, no one will _ever_ be able > to build on _Disney's_ work. I think you have to understand to understand that I was heh, still pumped with adrenaline after reading the assertion that copyrights should expire after 20 years... Now, as for building on Disney's work... I suppose that given copyright is a right and all (You'll have to excuse me, as I am Canadian, and not very familiar with your constitution) then sure, copyrights should die eventually... perhaps 50 years after the death of the creator? > That's the point. > > While your heirs are celebrating the millions they've made from your work, > what happens to the work of those without heirs? Or whose work isn't so > popular? The work isn't in the public domain, it's covered by copyright. > So if I want to publish it, I have to track down heirs in order to get > the right to do so. Let's see, I don't expect to make much on this work > (since it wasn't very popular when it was new) and it'll cost thousands > to track the heirs down, cuts into my thin profit margin, forget it, > I'll publish something else. That work gets forgotten, and, worse, > someone who might have read it never goes on to redo it in a way that > is unique and wonderful, that would have made him millions and that would > have added something very much worthwhile to humanity. Well, that could happen no matter WHEN copyrights expire. Hell, copyrights could last ten years and could still take time and money to untangle the rights after the death of an artist. > So you would really like to destroy the public domain so that a few can > profit from their ancestor's work? I don't think I said anything about wanting to destroy the public domain. Actually, when I first entered this thread when replying to Gametech who wanted to remove all non-divine motivation to create (ie: the profit motive). So, no, I don't really want to destroy the public domain... but I sure as hell don't want to preserve it at the cost of the private domain and the profit motive, either. > The LA Times had an article about this issue several weeks ago. It went > into the origin of copyright and the Stationers' monopoly before 1710. > Then: > When the U.S. Constitution was drawn up several years later, > this history was still fresh. Jefferson wanted to put a > "restriction against monopolies" in the Bill of Rights, right > alongside trial by jury and freedom of the press. He, like the > other framers, hated concentrating power in the hands of a few, > and didn't like the idea of the past calling the shots on the > future either. The earth belongs to the living, Jefferson > wrote Madison on Sept. 6, 1789: "The dead have neither powers > nor rights over it." > > Personally, I'm with Jefferson on this one. Heirs be damned, they can > make their _own_ millions. > > Have you ever considered the logical end result of your position, Scott? Okay, so I conceded (not that I ever seriously held it) that copyrights should eventually expire. I believe they should last at least the life of the author, plus a number of years... perhaps 20, perhaps.50. I'm not American, I don't hold Disney or Mickey Mouse in huge esteem, however I do have to recognize the fact that Mickey Mouse is a powerful symbol for the company, and it could be a disaster if/when the Mouse enters the public domain and people start making the mouse associated with things other than family, fun, and rampant consumerism. Oh well, maybe they shouldn't invest so much money in symbols they're destined to lose control of. -Scott Ingram