Scott Ingram wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b at dd-b.net> > > >> Scott Ingram <singram at videotron.ca> writes: <snip> > > The quote I'm replying to is from Gametech, who, in past posts has > declared almost no respect for creator's rights at all. > You seem to be in favor of 'author's life plus N years'... Gametech is > altering his position from None to N years. I've got plenty of respect for a creator's rights (I'm a creator, most of the work I've done profesionaly would fall under the so called proctection of copyright), but I've got little to no respect for current copyright laws. I don't equate a creators rights to be = to copyright > >> Quite a lot of interesting literary work has come out of the Sherlock >> Holmes universe, after the estate no longer controlled it. A lot of >> literature is heavily based on Shakespeare, and couldn't be if he >> were still in copyright (consider Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are >> Dead). I think we agreed earlier that it's important things go into >> the pot, and the question is *when*. > > Agreed A lot of work is very relevant to the era it is produced in, if a creator of the age of 35 dies at an average of 75 and then you tack on another 70 years you've got 110 years of copyright protection, Copyright not only outlives the author but all individuals that were exposed to the original work released in it's original era... okay +50 years after death you get 90 years still outliving all but the very youngest who were exposed... +30 years well that's 70 and now at least there will be more survivors of the work (the youngest generations mind you) +10 years leaves it at 50 years of protection which will outlive most people and is greater than 1/2 an average human lifespan. + anything to copyright after death is ridiculous, the argument earlier was brought up that basing copyright on terms of death would cause age discrimination *yet somehow you are suggesting it* I think copyright should be a finite fixed term, of a length that those who were most influenced (it being prevalent media in their era) have a decent opportunity to utilize what goes into the pot. > <snipped long quote> > >>> Why are you guys so against creators making money off of their >>> creations? Or hell, even just sitting on their creations and >>> refusing to let anyone make any money? (ie: the refusal Calvin and >>> Hobbes creator, Bill Watterson, to allow toys to be made of his >>> characters). >> >> Which "you guys" is this? I feel like that's aimed at me, since I'm >> the previous-but-one poster here, but I don't feel this describes my >> position at all. > > No, it's aimed at Gametech, sorry if you got caught in the friendly > fire. Okay well If it's clearly aimed at me I may as well retort. I've got no issues with a creator making money off of their creation, that is I've got more of an issue with capitalistic society than with this one branch of professions making money (which I'm complety part of). The publishers of media these days make more than the author does, an metric ass-ton more. The idea of changing copyright laws to a much shorter finite fixed length of time in your eyes 'robs' them, they are willing to fork over in most cases over 80% of the profits made from their works just to the chain of distribution, reforming copyright doesn't even mean the creator has to make *less* money - this shortend span of time that a creator can collect money for a specific work can be compensated by a larger % of his sales (which they have willingly chosen to not take, they *could* always self publish) after all it's th buisnesses that publish and own rights that are actually making the largest percentage of the money involved in a creators work, not the creator themselves. Yeah.. But remember I've got little to no respect for a creators right so what should I care...err... NO! for most musicians excluding the occasional 'popular over more than two generations' 90% of the money they will make from any one album will be made in the first 10 years, I haven't suggested 10 years as copyright expiration but the point that any amount of copyright generously allows a creator ample time to capitalize on their work. Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution states that: "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I'd like to place some emphasis on 'limited' in the third line, this was the initial idea of copyright, IP, Patents etc. I don't think they were expecting copyright to oulive anyone for very long, if at all. >>> Is the inability to publish works about hobbits named Frodo and >>> vampires named Sethra really inhibiting your creativity so much? >>> >>> 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! >> >> "Why are you so afraid" is one of those red flag phrases. Your >> emotions have overcome your intellect, and we're probably not going >> to get anywhere with this discussion unless you calm down a little. > Arguing that you are using a 'red flaged' statement and therefore your argument is less valid is a 'green flag' than *your* argument is more valid? What if you're colorblind? > As our opinions on the life of copyright seem to coincide ...give or > take 35 years after the death of the author. Which is fine. > > 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. > > -Scott