On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The whole idea of copyright - as the US started seeing it, in our constitution and thence onwards, is properly rewarding creative people for their efforts.
Well, actually it was for the benefit of printers. As is reflected in copyright today, which is for the benefit of publishers.
Free content and culture and information - Wikipedia included - is great. I don't see any need to forcibly tear down the whole edifice of commercial paid arts in the process.
I think this is a straw man rendering of the position, but I do think that forcibly tearing down the whole edifice would be a vast improvement in the world.
In particular, the public has no problem with individual musicians and writers being rewarded for their efforts. Trying to overcome that would mean making enemies out of most of the populace on this when we don't have to. Nobody's made a big public case for any shorter term. That's a mistake. The whole CC and free content movement needs to step up. We need Cory and other luminaries advocating for a sane term, and 14 is a good round number that works for everyone except insane anti-IP bigots on one hand and Hollywood on the other, whom I feel little remaining sympathy for.
That's why a term that doesn't blatantly take the piss might have a chance, yes. 14 years may be all they end up getting.
- d.