On 23 May 2012 08:33, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)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.