Re: copyright under stress

On Fri, 26 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> My own view of copyright is not that it is per se antiquated or
> wrong, but that the movement of it in the last 30 years has been
> the opposite of what technological change should have led to. For
> instance, terms should have become shorter, copyright should have
> covered less material, and notice of what is copyrighted and whom
> to contact for permission more obvious.

Why, John? Why do you feel that technological change should have led to curtailing of copyright protection in both scope and time? Do you believe that should have been a logical consequence of technological development?

Or do you think that would have been an appropriate response to such change and, if so, why?

--Dodi Schultz
  <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Sat May 27 2000 - 16:38:27 GMT