Re: OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.)
On Thursday 23 September 2021 07:22:17 rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.)
Debatable, mine will be 87 in a few days, but I didn't get political in
my thinking until I could vote. But before I voted, I felt strong enough
about the honest man that took my mother and her baby on with without
ever having enough money to adopt me as Iowa made that a very expensive
process, so on turning 21 I turned that respect into changing my last
name to match his. That I could do for a $20 bill. He is now long gone,
but has great, great, great grandkids wearing his name.
> > 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?
Something like that. The point I was trying to make is that today, the
law is for sale to the highest bidder. It is no longer "of the people,
by the people, for the people". One of the reasons I like debian, they
have set a set of principles and are sticking to them far better than
today's version of the Republic the founders envisioned in the late
1700's.
> 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
Anyway, this is off-topic for this list, and I should apologize for
bringing up what has been for me, a very sore subject. So, last post.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
- Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
Reply to: