On 9 Mar 2009 at 16:44, Brian L. Stuart wrote:
A law that dictates what happens for 75 years after my
death doesn't
significantly change my motivations for making my work available.
For the record, I opposed the life+75 revision of the copyright law.
And sections of DMCA are so vague that Justice has studiously avoided
testing them. Patents don't work that way and basing a term of
protection on someone's life span (i.e. it's financially more
advantageous to live to be 95 than 25) is strange at best.
But then, Mary Bono originally wanted to extend copyright protection
to perpetuity. Who knows, in 500 years, someone might still be
crooning "I got you, Babe". She had to settle for a meager 20 year
extension of the current law.
I wouldn't mind seeing copyright and patents enjoying roughly the
same length of protection--and infringement of either being a felony,
with rights and permissions approximately the same for both. (Music
copyright is a minefield in itself).
But, primarily because of WIPO and GATT and WTO, we've got what we've
got. I don't seeing things changing (at least until Mickey's lease
is about to run out).
Cheers,
Chuck