Scott Ingram writes:
>It seems the email that I had replied to had mis-represented your position
>on a few matters. For example; when you said copyright should expire after
>18 years
>" I'd -guess- a good number for copyright is somewhere between 30 and 50
>years. OTOH, part of me says that the "right" number is 18: the year your
>kid's allowed to move out of the house. :)"
>... you meant 'lifespan of the author plus 18 years'.
That was me...and it was a joke (as is obvious from the text above),
not Scott.
Copyright should be no more than 50 years (flat), and possibly as
little as 30 years. My point proving such is a reducto ad absurdium,
but that does not itself make it absurd -- it simply points out that
people's lifespans are not fixed terms, or anything close to
same...and are gradually increasing in length.
No, you don't get to own the thoughts in people's heads indefiniately,
even if you did inspire them.
>As for my emotions... yes they probably had gotten out of hand, however, I
>hope you understand that a crucial part of your position was missing from
>the email I was replying to.
Er...I think you were just confused.
[do we need another list for this kinds of junk?]
--
Joshua Kronengold (mneme at io.com) "I've been teaching |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
--^--him...to live, to breathe, to walk, to sample the /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\joy on each road, and the sorrow at each turning. |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
/-\\\I'm sorry if I kept him out too late"--Vlad Taltos '---''(_/--' (_/-'