Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
I just want it in the public domain so I can benefit from it just like everyone else. I don't want someone coming up with the idea and then. . . GASP. . . holding the rights to that idea and forcing me to pay for it.
(this BTW is sarcasm) My real point is that people keep saying think outside the box and that they should change the system, but they never suggest how that change should be made. This person should be in a perfect place for this because they personally don't benefit from the changes and they could let the world know a better way of doing business that benefited everyone, but they choose not to.
|
and how many times have you refused to pay me my fee when i said i would show such a solution if you paid me
Quote:
|
In all honesty I'm not opposed to shortening the time of exclusive copyright. In a different thread a while back I suggested that they make a system that had the copyright decrease in steps over time. For example you get an exclusive copyright for 30 years. Then after that for a number of years (say 10) you still hold the commercial rights, but if a school or some kind of education/artistic type of group wanted to use your work in a non-profit way they could without paying you. After that 10 years is up it enters into what I would call semi-public domain. This means anyone could do whatever they wanted with it, however if they used it in a way that made them money (for example if we are talking about a book they could just reprint and sell your book) then they have to pay you a small royalty based on their sales. Nothing huge, but enough that you still benefit from your work.
|
so your definition of shortening is to go from 70 years after a person death to forever (since you will never go into the public domain and be totally free to use)
and in exchange for that fake "shortening" you want everyone to give up the fair use rights they currently have for the first 30 years.
do you really believe anyone is stupid enough to believe that bullshit.
Quote:
|
Also, you are smart enough to know that free speech and fair use are not the same things. Free speech is not limitless or without boundaries. The same goes for fair use.
|
never said it was
i said that fair use was the mechanism in which free speech is protected. The court declared monopoly of the copyright has only one limit fair use. That outlay has been put in place to protect free speech, innovation and a host of other public benefits.
as for the limits of fair use, as i have repeatedly pointed out i know exactly what they are
your the person who says that the copyright holder should have the right to control their work completely.
I am the one that says that they should have the right of control for everything outside the scope of the 4 rules of fair use.
The law matches what i say, not what you say as you have repeatedly admitted.