OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.)
On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:12:49 PM Gene Heskett wrote:
> Or the ARRL forgot to renew the copyright. Copyrights were originally
> issued for a period of 7 years, renewable once for an additional 7
> years.
Hmm, without looking it up, I thought the 7/7 years was for patents, and
copyright was a little different (maybe like 13/13?)? (But Gene probably
remembers better than I do.)
> Along comes Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse, and Walt had money
> enough to get the law changed so we have the current never expires
> situation by including corporations such as Disney in it definitions of
> authors. If its ever been renewed. But the law today gives me automatic
> copyright over what I write without additional public notice, I think
> for 90 years after I die.
Something like that, but doesn't sound quite right (wish I had a better
memory). Previously copyrighted works are coming into the "public domain"
year by year, about 95 years after -- oh, maybe it is after the author's
death? Maybe there is an alternate path to copyright expiring? Not sure how
it works if a corporation owns a copyright -- I don't think it is perpetual.
And, at least some of the relevant laws differ by nation.
> There is something wrong with this picture. 14 years was considered as
> the author having milked his writings for 99% of all they would ever
> generate in income. IMNSHO it (the original version) is still a good
> idea. Stealing an individuals creativity, and his rewards for being
> creative by awarding the copyright to a corporation, is theft pure and
> simple,
Hmm, I don't think the copyright law nor the government award the copyright to
a corporation. If a corporation gets a copyright (or patent) that is based on
some explicit contractual or implicit (like the "work for hire" doctrine)
agreement
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
Reply to: