Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Copyright Rumblings

Posted by michael on from the digital-landgrab-still-in-progress dept.

dcunning writes "The Economist has a short opinion piece entitled Copyrights: A radical rethink that suggests (horror of horrors!) going so far as reverting back to the original copyright term of 14 years, renewable once. The article suggests that, in exchange for this, the 'content industries' be given 'much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies.' A worthwhile and fair tradeoff?"

2 of 474 comments (clear)

  1. Ball Sucking Is Not Cool by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 0, Troll
    Take an English course you fucking asshole. "can we force any legislation to force them" What the fuck? Go back to Greaseball Land and stay out of my country you fucking heathen. The Christians are coming Mohammed and they're not happy with you. In fact, they've decided that the Koran is public domain and thus, they will be releasing the Koran II which will instruct your blind followers that strapping bombs to themselves and killing people is actually wrong. Imagine that! So then you'll be in a world of shit, won't you? Yes sir, your little intifadah is coming to an end. No more of this horseshit from you and the swine of the Middle East. Nope, we're dropping the Koran II into Mosques in all those Middle Eastern countries and then we're coming in with Big Macs, cases of Molson Export, and pictures of Uman Thurman naked. The Muslims were driven out of Spain over a thousand years ago for a very good reason - Muslims smell bad. So fuck you and your camel you motherfucker.

    Also, don't use "OTOH" ever again because it's fucking queer.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  2. Re:So let me get this straight... by Software · · Score: 0, Troll
    >if the ex-copyright-holders are evil and don't
    >release it in the clear

    Why do you say this? Why is it evil to not release a work "in the clear" once copyright is expired? I really don't understand this mentality. I can see how it would be nice for a copyright holder to release a work once copyright has expired, but does the holder have an affirmative duty to do so?

    In your moral system, what exactly is required of the former holder of an expired copyright? Does he (or she) have to make a computer-readable version available? Does he have to host it on his servers, and pay the bandwidth charges? Does he have to mail a CD to everyone who asks, and anybody who doesn't? What does he have to do so that you can exercise your right to copy this work?