Re: [dvd-discuss] "limited times" selectively the gov't"gets it"

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:

>
>
>
>microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> 
>> Yes this is true...dealing with FOUNDATIONS is more difficult than 
structures
>> raised above them. Copyright deals with the foundations of intellectual
>> activity...
>> 
>
>Another point is that I would be willing to wager a large cool beverage
>of preference that more of the Sen's and Rep's are copyright holders
>(the published kind) than patent holders. 

I'll not take the bet. A wager on a sure thing takes the thrill away from 
gambling and substitutes dull avarice.

>One wonders (although not too
>strongly) why it wasn't considered an ethics violation for Mary Bono to
>advocate for an increase in copyright terms, when it had a great
>likelihood of personally enriching her.  On the bench that would call
>for a recusal, but not apparently in the US Congress.  For the Congress,
>were the copyright holders to recuse themselves, a quorum might be
>difficult to achieve.

Well not having a criminal record is also not a requirement either.

>
>This comes back to my thought that the current copyright system is
>flawed exactly to the extent that it is not sufficiently circumscribed
>in the constitution. (whatever you think of my specific initial draft).
>
>.002


Flawed yes, I think that the Drafters of the Constitution probably thought 
"Yeah.copyright is good. So let's keep that. How long? Well we don't want 
to let this go on too long. 14 years. That's about right. Oh. What get's 
copyrighted. Charts Maps, books, useful things..Now let's get onto 
something more important".  But the current copyright is the product of 
the last 25 yrs. The USA could have joined the Berne Convention in 1909 
but chose not to.  I contend that the Berne Convention is flawed and that 
by accepting it the copyright system has become flawed.