Isn't that the point? Copyright is not a right, it's an artificial, governement granted structure designed to allow the creator time to make a profit on their creation. If there is no value in the creation, then copyright should not be needed.
And copyright is automatically granted (as opposed to trademarks), so if someone *does* make money of your creation at a later date, while still under protection, then you have a legal right to challenge the copier in court to regain the now-non-zero value of your property...
I personally don't think copyright, per se, is wrong - but I strongly agree that it's lasts to long - especially for digital artifacts.
Surely the answer to 20 is E) None of the above - since when did recording industries change biology. Having a CD in my posession may have meant better presentation of the music available from the source but it has not improved the acuity of my hearing in general....
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the point? Copyright is not a right, it's an artificial, governement granted structure designed to allow the creator time to make a profit on their creation. If there is no value in the creation, then copyright should not be needed.
And copyright is automatically granted (as opposed to trademarks), so if someone *does* make money of your creation at a later date, while still under protection, then you have a legal right to challenge the copier in court to regain the now-non-zero value of your property...
I personally don't think copyright, per se, is wrong - but I strongly agree that it's lasts to long - especially for digital artifacts.
DNF?
Surely the answer to 20 is E) None of the above - since when did recording industries change biology. Having a CD in my posession may have meant better presentation of the music available from the source but it has not improved the acuity of my hearing in general....
I swear its got nothing to do with this
1) Start ...
2)
3) Profit !
Sorry.