With something as popular as Star Wars I imagine there'd be 20 movies by now, just like there are what, 30 movies based on Romeo and Juliet?
And I'm saying since George Lucas is still alive and kicking and still in the movie business, his Star Wars copyright shouldn't be up for expiration discussion. Shakespeare has been dead a long time. I'm sure he doesn't mind they made a bad urban interpretation of his work.
We, the people (consumers mainly), allow authors a temporary monopoly on their work because we think the tradeoff is worth it. Should enough people decide it's not working well anymore it can be changed.
Well you are at least the third person to say this, so I'm just asking where does it say this is true? The Constitution gives congress the power to grant copyright to individuals. It doesn't give consumers the right to grant "temporary monopolies". I don't think it says anything about for the good fo society or for the consumer (but I may be mistaken, as I'm only going on people's summaries in this discussion about what it says).
The fact that people may get sick of an original idea is not germane to the discussion of copyright.We don't have copyright laws to appease the consumer.
Demanding everything be free, especially when the owner doesn't want you to have it for free, indeed does make one a free-loader. Especially when the free-loader takes that which wasn't free and then jumps on/. and declares that information wants to be free.
I'm open for reducing the length. I think it's weird that your emphasis is 14-30 years to turn a profit. What I suggest is that if you are ALREADY making a profit in year 2 on your Star Wars franchise, then you should continue to be the sole profiteer (and your partners), LONG AFTER 14 years. Star Wars would have expired in, what, 1991 by your timeframe? There's still tons of Star Wars stuff out there and George Lucas should enjoy that for many years to come.
Now tell me 100 years from now that Star Wars is still going strong, then that's a different conversation (and our society has really shit the bed). But that 100 years at leasts guarantees Lucas will benefit from his creation during its and his relevant years.
You are confusing the issue. The issue isn't if people will pay for content for their own consumption. The issue is that other authors shouldn't be allowed to copy your work, then put it on the market to profit as if it were their own.
If you just took The Hobbit and rewrote it and put your name on it and sold it on Amazon, then made a few hundred thousand dollars, that's completely different than random guy in his mom's basement downloading The Hobbit and not paying for it.
Gee, I didn't know it was the government's job to ensure people are getting paid for their work, at least not in any economic regime other than socialism.
Here's more from the actual Department of Labor. Sorry, but just because you don't think it's the government's job to ensure people are being compensated fairly doesn't make it so:
I didn't know it was the government's job to ensure people are getting paid for their work,
You aren't paying attention then:
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (OSHA) Unemployment Compensation Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
The original owner of a work may be dead, but the franchise lives on. Shouldn't the franchise holders be protected from losing their investment to copy-cats?
If George Lucas died today, should Star Wars immediately become public domain, even when there's a huge MMO and lots of movie memorabilia with full licensing and lots of money still to be made by the people who paid for the right to do so?
If somebody came along and recorded a bunch of Britney Spears songs, as bad as they are, that's still not fair to the original artist (I use the term loosely). Copyright doesn't ensure quality, it ensures due compensation.
No they won't, because the jobs will all require citizenship. Even those citizens that were naturalized have a very difficult time getting the clearances they need, and you can forget it if you have family members of other citizenship (or are married to a foreigner).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a gammer therefore speling is hard.
Your comment provides much insight as to why Linux does not enjoy mainstream success (feel free to add a strong lisp for effect):
By definition it has to support a Jetdirect, LPR/LPD, and at least an IPP print queue- and use PCL or Postscript for the print command language.
You are citing a slashdot story from the Linux section as proof of Linux success? How is that remotely valid?
Exactly. This line pretty much sums up my entire Linux experience as a technology training developer:
Users have ... also complained of missing functionality, a lack of usability and poor interoperability.
It really is that easy, but hard for devout slashdotters to see from within this cozy little thought-sharing ecosystem.
An economy without an investment class has already collapsed.
With something as popular as Star Wars I imagine there'd be 20 movies by now, just like there are what, 30 movies based on Romeo and Juliet?
And I'm saying since George Lucas is still alive and kicking and still in the movie business, his Star Wars copyright shouldn't be up for expiration discussion. Shakespeare has been dead a long time. I'm sure he doesn't mind they made a bad urban interpretation of his work.
We, the people (consumers mainly), allow authors a temporary monopoly on their work because we think the tradeoff is worth it. Should enough people decide it's not working well anymore it can be changed.
Well you are at least the third person to say this, so I'm just asking where does it say this is true? The Constitution gives congress the power to grant copyright to individuals. It doesn't give consumers the right to grant "temporary monopolies". I don't think it says anything about for the good fo society or for the consumer (but I may be mistaken, as I'm only going on people's summaries in this discussion about what it says).
A key difference in literature is that the kissing siblings didn't know they were related. They can't say that in the South.
I'm not trolling, I'm seriously asking...is it implied or actually stated somewhere that society is to get something out of it?
The fact that people may get sick of an original idea is not germane to the discussion of copyright.We don't have copyright laws to appease the consumer.
Because people who take risk should be rewarded for their risk. Otherwise this economy would die as would most of western civilization.
Demanding everything be free, especially when the owner doesn't want you to have it for free, indeed does make one a free-loader. Especially when the free-loader takes that which wasn't free and then jumps on /. and declares that information wants to be free.
I'm open for reducing the length. I think it's weird that your emphasis is 14-30 years to turn a profit. What I suggest is that if you are ALREADY making a profit in year 2 on your Star Wars franchise, then you should continue to be the sole profiteer (and your partners), LONG AFTER 14 years. Star Wars would have expired in, what, 1991 by your timeframe? There's still tons of Star Wars stuff out there and George Lucas should enjoy that for many years to come.
Now tell me 100 years from now that Star Wars is still going strong, then that's a different conversation (and our society has really shit the bed). But that 100 years at leasts guarantees Lucas will benefit from his creation during its and his relevant years.
But SWtOR will be good...at least better than the Transformer and Harry Potter video games, amiright?
Are you sure it was about Hitler? I always read it was about the industrial revolution in general, not just one bad guy in Europe.
It's "hobbitses", not "hobbits".
Yep, kissing siblings..a staple of old order conservatism.
You are confusing the issue. The issue isn't if people will pay for content for their own consumption. The issue is that other authors shouldn't be allowed to copy your work, then put it on the market to profit as if it were their own.
If you just took The Hobbit and rewrote it and put your name on it and sold it on Amazon, then made a few hundred thousand dollars, that's completely different than random guy in his mom's basement downloading The Hobbit and not paying for it.
Gee, I didn't know it was the government's job to ensure people are getting paid for their work, at least not in any economic regime other than socialism.
Here's more from the actual Department of Labor. Sorry, but just because you don't think it's the government's job to ensure people are being compensated fairly doesn't make it so:
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/main.htm
And I think you are confusing statism with socialism.
And sorry to double-reply, but your comment truly irks me.
I didn't know it was the government's job to ensure people are getting paid for their work,
You aren't paying attention then:
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (OSHA)
Unemployment Compensation
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
That's just a few for starters.
Benefit : you get this new work for free.
I'm not sure how more free-loaders benefits society.
The original owner of a work may be dead, but the franchise lives on. Shouldn't the franchise holders be protected from losing their investment to copy-cats?
If George Lucas died today, should Star Wars immediately become public domain, even when there's a huge MMO and lots of movie memorabilia with full licensing and lots of money still to be made by the people who paid for the right to do so?
If somebody came along and recorded a bunch of Britney Spears songs, as bad as they are, that's still not fair to the original artist (I use the term loosely). Copyright doesn't ensure quality, it ensures due compensation.
Just fire the auditor(s) who didn't do his/her/their job(s), which is to audit contractors and ensure they are meeting the terms of the contract.
Of course they produce things. WikiLeaks would have no material if national security didn't produce anything.
No they won't, because the jobs will all require citizenship. Even those citizens that were naturalized have a very difficult time getting the clearances they need, and you can forget it if you have family members of other citizenship (or are married to a foreigner).