Re:A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?
by Xichekolas on Monday May 21, 2007 @12:45PM
(#23638)
I was thinking along the same lines. The whole argument reads like one of those anti-piracy commercials we see before movie previews... think of the poor starving artist! (Don't think about the reason he is starving, which is that the publishers/labels/studios reap most of the profits for themselves.)
He also seems to think that copyright only applies to the world of books. This is probably natural because the guy is an author, but copyright has been expanded to include so much that infinite copyright terms would grant dynastic control of almost all media and culture.
I would like to point out however that the point is moot. Every time Disney comes close to letting Mickey Mouse slip into the public domain, they successfully lobby congress for an extension to copyright terms. So, as far as we can tell, the terms are already infinite, because I don't see Congress saying no anytime soon.
What bullshit. Ideas already were the "chief engines" in their time, a somewhat famous period called the "Industrial Revolution". The crown forbade the transfer of manufacturing knowledge, textile mill plans, etc, on pain of death. The Colonies were forced to sell raw materials cheap and buy manufactured goods dear.
The author also conflates the problem of publishing cartels with copyright, jangling an image of the poor starving writer brutalized by the pinko copyleft junta. He gives it away: the author gets 10% of sales while the publisher gets 50%. Who, then, is to benefit most from unlimited copyright? Why should we worry about the yachts of the writer's grandchildren when the writer is being robbed blind in his own lifetime?