[Community_studios] Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Copyright is essentially wrong (I'm surprised no one's mentioned this from today's)

[Alex]

Ah, and here's were we start getting into the muddy waters of why copyrights
came into fashion in the first place. If the original author(s) of 1001 Arabian
Nights could have copyrighted their works, Disney couldn't have made (alas, are
STILL making) a gazillion bucks on Alladin's tale, while they (or their
descendants) make no money and live in relative anonymity. Although copyrights
are damaging to the creative process of those not holding said copyrights, they
do help to keep the copyright holders from gettting totally screwed by
companies that would abuse the spirit of their creations. "In a perfect
world..." people would be honorable, and not abuse creative people's inate
generosity. However, as long as we have the RIAA, Disney, Microsoft and other
assimilators who take credit and money for other people's work, it's either
resort to the protection copyrights afford, or resign yourself to the fact that
you're about to be majorly abused.

We need to get rid of people who would rape and pillage our knowledge and
creations, and the issue of copyrights would go away on its own. And THAT would
be a perfect world...

How many more years until Mickey Mouse becomes Public Domain? We'll screw
Disney back!   8^)

Alex Heizer
http://www.synchcorp.com/alex
http://www.synchcorp.com/alexheizer


tom poe wrote:

> Hi:  My understanding of this concept, is that if we create a transformative
> work, it must be "approved" by the original copyright holder.  Or, the work
> has to wait until the copyright is ended.  Since we all agree [I hope], that
> all works are based on previous knowledge and experience, i.e., from ideas
> and expressions that came before, it flies in the face of advancement to
> think copyrights are deserving of "life unto perpetuity".  Under our present
> system, Shakespear can sit and wait for what, maybe another 150 years, and
> then publish his "original" work?
>
> Those who believe that copyright should indeed, be granted unto perpetuity,
> get into trouble when confronted with this notion, so we now have something
> that looks like, copyrights are "property", and, for the good of society, in
> that it is much more efficient to have as few doors as possible to negotiate
> the "market transactions", advancement in the arts and sciences will thrive
> if we lose the traditional concept, and replace it with "intellectual
> property" concept.  For example, although Disney based his works on previous
> "works", he now wants to change the rules, and keep his "rights" from now
> until forever.  Nice for him, but bad for those who follow.
> Thanks,
> tom
> http://www.studioforrecording.org/
> http://www.ibiblio.org/studioforrecording/
> http://renotahoe.pm.org/
>
> On Thursday 02 May 2002 08:52, James S. Huggins \(DMCA Discuss\) wrote:
> > =============================
> > The works of Shakespear for instance would not have been written under
> > copyright law (many of his works are based on works of about 30 years
> > before he wrote his).
> > =============================
> >
> > Is this explored anywhere in more detail?
> >
> >
> > James S. Huggins
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ....
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> > ------------------------
> > http://www.anti-dmca.org
> > ------------------------
> >
> > DMCA_Discuss mailing list
> > DMCA_Discuss at lists.microshaft.org
> > http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Community_studios mailing list
> Community_studios at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/community_studios