On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:12:00 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Rick belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:41:05 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:56:34 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> With ideas and art it can only be copying, never stealing.
>>> Typical freetard who has never been a position understand that the net
>>> result to the victim can be the same.
>> You do understand that copy rights were never meant to extend past the
>> life of the owner, don't you? They were always meant to be of limited
>> time in order to allow the owner to make a living while producing the
>> next work, essentially ending the need for patronage. The fact that we
>> have copyright at all is because the Founding Fathers compromised.
>> Personally, seeing how things turned out, i think the compromise was a
> Well, the term for copyright used to be much much shorter than a
> person's lifetime.
Yes, that's true. It was originally a total of 28 years. 14 to start, and
then could be renewed for another 14, -if- the person was alive.
> Now it is wayyyyy too long.
> Money for nuthin'/
> Get yer chicks fer free/
> -- Dire Straits