On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> So what drives the raging against copyright, if it isn't any kind
> of desire for the public good? Seems to me it's the larcenous lust.
> Eliminate copyright and you deprive the writer of the opportunity to
> profit from his work. But you've correspondingly opened the door for
> anyone other than the writer to profit from the writer's work.
I see two very big problems with the current state of copyright law:
Proposed solution: if a work is (a) copyrighted by an organization rather than a human, (b) published within the organization but not sold to the general public, and (c) contains reasonably newsworthy information, it should be made legal for third parties to copy and publish the relevant parts for news reporting purposes.
2. Copyright term extension vastly increases the number of "lost"
works (i.e. the work has been out-of-print for half a century; current copyright holder can't be identified; no copies exist outside of museum rare-book collections; and it'll be another thirty years before Dover Books or Project Gutenberg are free to try and revive the work from the dead).
Proposed solution: if a work (a) has been previously published, (b) no new copies of the work have been offered for sale in the last 28 years, and (c) the Copyright Office has no contact info for the current copyright holder, then it should be made legal for third parties to copy and republish the work upon payment of a mechanical royalty.
Lance Purple
<lpurple[_at_]netcom.com>
Received on Wed Apr 05 2000 - 03:47:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:38 GMT