On Sunday 24 April 2005 17:24, Alan Dayley wrote:
> On Sunday 24 April 2005 01:08 pm, FoulDragon@aol.com wrote:
> > My belief is that we need to merely subsidize content creators. Offer
> > an incentive (we'll buy your copyright for $xxx to void it), and a
> > stick (IP licence income from non-state-subsidy approaches is taxed at
> > 500 percent).
>
> I disagree with this idea. Copyright and patent are government granted
> monopolies. I, as a taxpayer, already "subsidize" a content creator by
> granting them a monopoly for a "limited time." If the content creator
> cannot then create a successful business model on that monopoly, that's
> his problem.
>
> IMO the solution would include some sort of truely "limited time" instead
> of this 90 years after the death of the creator stuff.
>
> Alan
The original protection offered by copyright law was more-than fair. 12 years
from creation is perfectly fair. After all, Microsoft went from a small time
organization of indidividuals to a multi-billion corporation in that amount
of time.
If you market your product, and kiss the right ass, you can make your
copyrighted work worth millions. I look at it this way...if you create it,
and sit on it, too damn bad for you.
I also want to add....why do software companies get to provide no guarantee?
That's another BS thing for you. "We get all the rights of an individual but
no responsibility of one." Think about it. Even hardware vendors don't have
to guarantee the operation of their hardware! So, in reality, we pay a
boatload of money and get no promise that it will work...and no liability
when it doesn't work.
--
Sincerely,
Jason Spatafore
http://www.spatafore.net
A+ Certified Service Professional
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)