----- Original Message ----- From: "David Krentz" <ddkrentz@charter.net> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 6:49 AM
"No one wants to rip off his heirs but profiting from something you didn't help create 70 plus years after the death of he who did create it is ridiculously excessive. Ten years would be reasonable. "
Whoa, I don't know where to begin with that one. That is how artists make money.
By living off the work of their grandparents?
I think the idea is 10 years after the creator's death, not 10 years after creation.
In any case, what I don't understand is why scientific articles are subject to the same copyright laws as works of art. How many people have ever paid 30 to 40 $ for an article? If they can't find a pdf for free, people go to their university library and take a photocopy for free (that is, none of the money left in the machine goes to the publisher... let alone to the author who paid the page charges and/or the 900 $ per color figure out of their grant).