Re: SV: Knight and Public Domain

[don ohmes <d_ohmes@yahoo.com>]

> On Thu, 5/15/08, Andrew Simpson <deathspresso@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Don Ohmes wrote:

> > > tommy.tyrberg@norrkoping.mail.telia.com> wrote:

> > > Now if patent laws were the same as copyright law,
> > > in most
> > > of the World
> > > the Wright Brothers' patent on aircraft would
> > > still
> > > have 10 years left
> > > on it.
> > > 
> > > Now it is not immediately obvious to me that e.g.
> > > playing
> > > a tune is
> > > intrinsically a more demanding or worthy pursuit
> > > than
> > > inventing the
> > > aeroplane. 
 
> > Uh, strongly disagree. Unlike Wright's aircraft,
> > there is no 'greater good' argument to justify
> > ripping off Knight or his heirs (for example). What,
> > the progress of civilization requires that people be
> > able download a song for free?

> No one wants to rip off his heirs 

Sure you do! You are just willing to wait ten years. How patient of you, 
considering how great your need is. Gee, where is my sarcasm emoticon? 

> but profiting from
> something you didn't help create 

How the hell would anybody know what input the contemplation of future 
owners/viewers has on the work of an artist? In your world, artists evidently 
cannot transfer ownership of their art to those they choose, because in your 
judgment the new owners don't morally deserve to profit. (What a great excuse! 
Thinking about patenting that? Hmmm. Might be prior art...) I guess the idea is 
that it won't matter to the artists because they are dead. How noble. Better 
hope they stay dead...

> 70 plus years after
> the death of he who did create it is ridiculously
> excessive. Ten years would be reasonable. 

How ridiculously arbitrary; and all on done on the basis of a snap moral 
judgment -- where is the 'greater need' that justifies the abrogation of 
individual rights? 

Don Ohmes