Replies

Posit that when I purchase a copy of intellectual property I have the right to maintain possesion of said property in its original condition (unlike a material object that suffers wear). I therefore should be able to create for my own use copies of that material provided I do not offer those copies to others for any reason.

Efforts by the entertainment industry, not to mention software producers, to prevent copying of material obviates this consumer right. Both industries are trying to transition to a point were the consumer is only leasing the intellectual property. They are also trying to extend the copyright into perpetuity, as in the case of Disney, which would be contrary to "...securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

That said, I do not purchase tapes, CD's, DVD's. I feel absolutely no need to encourage irresponsible corporate behavior that puts profit ahead of what I consider decency. Software I buy only when I must and I avoid as much as possible the companies that I consider rapacious.

I doubt that this is a convincing arguement for you. Indeed, it was not intended to be an arguement at all. I suspect that on the topic of theft of intellectual rights, you and I will agree on most points.

I doubt that this is a convincing arguement for you.

It's not, and I'll tell you why.

For every honest person like you, who will reproduce intellectual property ONLY for his own use, there are fifteen scoundrels who reproduce intellectual property and pass it around like candy to their friends, or even sell it, thereby benefitting from the work of others.

IOW, the abuse of others has lead to these electronic restrictions that, unfortunately, affect good people like you.

You're not the only one who is upset with our current copyright laws. I was looking into the idea of getting into the business of making DVD's out of old, obscure movies and selling them through fanzines like Filmfax and others. Then I researched the current copyright laws. Holy Moley! You would not believe how those laws have been changed over the last ten years!

Bottom line: There is no such thing as "public domain" any longer, with the exception of movies made before 1927. Anything after that is pretty much off limits. This means that if you or I make a copy of a movie made in 1935, and sell it to someone else, we are taking the risk of being sued for a LOT of money.

Think about it. Patents only last seventeen years, but copyrights last pretty much forever now. Isn't that special?

Don't get me wrong, I think that people who make movies should own them for a long time. I would have no problem with copyrights lasting up to forty years. But after that they should go into the public domain. As it is now there really is no such thing as "public domain" any longer.

I'll give you an example. Remember the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" (1947)? That's a public domain movie, right? Wrong. It was considered to be public domain for a long time, but then some lawyers filed suit, and got a ruling based upon a technicality that reverted the copyright back to the original owners. So now if you want to show "It's a Wonderful Life" you have to pay royalties. This is for a movie made in 1947! A fifty-seven year old movie! Give me a break!

Efforts by the entertainment industry, not to mention software producers, to prevent copying of material obviates this consumer right.

Other than your own assertion, what makes you think you have this 'right'? If you really want to maintain copyright material in it's original condition, put it ina safe deposit box and don't use it. Other than that, unless the copyright holder specifies otherwise, you have purchased one copy of the material as licensed by it's copyright holder for the duration of it's usefull lifespan.