[pure-silver] Re: Uneasy Question From Nervous Uncle
- From: Bill Stephenson <photographica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:31:42 -0500
Just as an aside to all this conversation - I find it truly abhorrent
that copyright rests with the "author" for 50 - 70 years after that
person's death. Certainly a photographer/author/artist/etc. has a right
to remuneration for his/her work for so long as he's alive to receive
it, but why on earth do we have to pander to the "rights"
(non-existent, in my opinion) of the next one or two generations? If I
recall correctly (highly unlikely, considering the amber fluid I'm
currently imbibing to unwind after a nasty day), there have been NO
songs entering the public domain for about 4-5 years, and will be NO
songs entering until (I believe) 2008. Should photographs suffer the
same fate? Personally, I don't think so. In the U.S., the law (until
the late 70's, I believe) was that copyright was granted for a 35 year
period, renewable once. Assuming that most people don't create
copyright-worthy work until they're 15 or so, this would protect the
creator until age 85. Wasn't that enough? Why should descendants with
little or no talent, be guaranteed benefits from what their ancestors
created? Just a personal rant; sorry for going on so long. (Have you
ever tried Rebel Yell Bourbon...? It's great for changing 10-word
comments into doctoral dissertations.
-Bill
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
