Homer <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | an extra 45 years' protection is highly unlikely to ...
>
> ... reduce copyright violation. In fact it'll criminalise that which was
> previously legal, thus exacerbating the problem by a huge factor.
Only if the copyright extension is retroative...
And is it legally possible to do that?
Such a thing is theft, after all... They're stealing property that belonged
to the public domain and putting it back under a copyright umbrella.
Anyone copying and selling such works and taken to court would be well
within their expectations to be able to say "This work has been part of the
public domain for 20 years, I have committed no crime in copying, packaging
and selling it. It belongs to me, it belongs to you, it belongs to everyone
in this courtroom, and has done for 20 years. What right does anyone have to
take our property away?"
Note: this is different to copyright violation.
This *IS* theft. You are REMOVING something from someone they can't get
back. With copyright violation you're not removing anything, you're simply
copying it.
--
| spike1@xxxxxxxxxx,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
|
|
