Andrew Halliwell <spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ben <beno1990@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The life of the author + 70 years is a long enough copyright term IMHO.
>
> Long *enough*?
> It's waaaaay too long.
> Why should great, great grand children STILL profit from the sale of books
> published over 150 years ago?
>
> It's Obscene! That's what it is.
You're a fucking idiot Halliwell. Why should you profit from a
University education in Institutions set up 100s of years ago?
Why should you inherit any money from family who earned it themselves.
>
>> It allows a person or group of people to benefit from what they've
>> created, and I dare say it allows their children and even grandchildren
>> to benefit too,
>
> Try great great... when you consider people can have great grand children at
> the age of 80, they might not die until their late 90s or even 100s, and
> then it's another 70 years AFTER that...
> it's quite possible for quite a few greats to be in that line.
So? If you want it that much pay for it you thieving, hypocritical arse.
>
> with the clause that the copyright lasts for 70 years
>> after the author's death. Adding extra to that is... A bit silly,
>> really, and I don't think I know anyone who thinks artists, programmers,
>> authors, etc. could benefit from this. And I know a few of each of the
>> above.
>
> The only "people" who REALLY benefit from this are the money grubbing,
> greedy media corporations who can buy up copyrighted works and exploit them
> long after the original author has rotted to dust.
Where is all your contributions to the OSS world as a result of your
wonderful degree? Do show us.
--
- "Thats what I have been saying for 5 years. Consumers are tired, they
want something new and more exciting."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
|
|
