Is it the law now that PA and the people that host their site are shielded from civil action as long as they comply with requests to take down offending content? Whether the request has any legal merit or not.... So they could put up new offending content every day as long as they took it down after they got a request? Or am I confused somehow? Like I am usually.
>>>I don't have a huge problem with Disney wanting to control a copyright on Mickey, because they're still actively using him in their business.
This is exactly the wrong thinking that got us to the place we are now. The popular opinion that the orginator of a creative work owns it, and has exclusive rights to get compensated for its worth until they no longer can think of any way to suck any more money from it is what allows the Supreme Court to make a ruling that is so obviosly counter the wording of the constitution.
The expectation that an orginator of creative work will recieve compensation from having the exclusive rights to their works for a limited time certainly motivates the creator of the work. I don't see how still owning those rights long after their death provides much additional motivation.
Contitutionaly, copyright law exsists for the sole purpose of benefiting the public, the fact that the creator of the work also benefits is just a happy coincidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it the law now that PA and the people that host their site are shielded from civil action as long as they comply with requests to take down offending content? Whether the request has any legal merit or not. ... So they could put up new offending content every day as long as they took it down after they got a request? Or am I confused somehow? Like I am usually.
>>>I don't have a huge problem with Disney wanting to control a copyright on Mickey, because they're still actively using him in their business.
This is exactly the wrong thinking that got us to the place we are now. The popular opinion that the orginator of a creative work owns it, and has exclusive rights to get compensated for its worth until they no longer can think of any way to suck any more money from it is what allows the Supreme Court to make a ruling that is so obviosly counter the wording of the constitution.
The expectation that an orginator of creative work will recieve compensation from having the exclusive rights to their works for a limited time certainly motivates the creator of the work. I don't see how still owning those rights long after their death provides much additional motivation.
Contitutionaly, copyright law exsists for the sole purpose of benefiting the public, the fact that the creator of the work also benefits is just a happy coincidence.