@arthur: "In Message-ID:<ieqkke$qdc$<email_address>>,
Lee Gold <email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
     I think my comments make sense here.  Some people may think they
belong on the overflow list.  If so, say so and maybe we'll move any
further discussion there.
     Some songs and movies are so well-known that they seem to be part
of our culture.  When they are no longer available, we feel saddened.
More, we sometimes feel offended that *someone* is keeping us from our
history.
      Many Disney movies fall into that category.  People are
occasionally outraged when they find out that the Zapruder film is
copyright and can't be freely shown.
     And yet, we have devised copyright to allow creators control over
their creations.  If you became ashamed of one of your works, wouldn't
you want to keep it from further dissemination, if you could?
     The person who put that deleted Fantasia clip onto Youtube may
have made a big mistake.  He acknowledged in his comments that he knew
it was copyright *and* that the copyright holder would not want the
clip there.  That could make him an easy target for a huge copyright
infringement award.
     But, we want to see it.  It's part of our heritage and our
childhood.  We want to be able to compare the original with our
current and past acceptance (or rejection) of racial images.
     I feel that both Disney and the person who posted the clip have
right on their sides.  I would enjoy seeing other opinions to help me
explore this paradoxical thinking.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @leegold: "<quote>
I'm bothered by using copyright laws to keep stuff from being read/seen 
tht the original artists wanted to be read/seen.
I'm especially bothered by being nervous about reprinting stuff that 
first appeared in my RPG APA because the writers have disappeared (maybe 
dead, but I don't know who their heirs are).
When I took Middle English in grad school, back in the 1960s, the copy 
of PIERS PLOWMAN in the original text had been censored, giving us (as 
we told one another) 6.1 scenes, so I had to buy the Penguin edition in 
modern English to find out the rest of the text about Lust.  The problem 
here wasn't copyright but prissy-minded scholars.  And that's also the 
reason why an English language translation I've got of a work on 
Japanese mythology has lots of passages in Latin (so upper class men 
would understand them but lower class men and all wome wouldn't 
understand them).
But even in the case of Fantasia, I'm bothered that the film I remember 
seeing as a child has been mutilated.  When I tried to recall the 
censored scenes, I only remembered the beautiful flowers being stuck in 
the centaurette's tail and that the black centaurette didn't get a date. 
  I didn't recall the crude racist drawing of her head/face.
I agree that Disney Corporation funded this film and owns it, and that 
Walt was around and in on the decision to censor that passage (even 
while the company was working on Song of the South), but I'd really like 
to be able to buy the film on DVD with the original version as a bonus 
track, possibly preceded by a Disney Corporation apology for the 
original poor taste.
Then again I wonder if, in decades to come, people will be disgusted by 
the current Disney policy of including wise ass, jive talking companions 
to the hero/heroine.
Lee"
    @kip: "<quote>
Hasn't it been up there since 2008? I'd have thought that if Disney was 
really concerned about him, he'd have been taken down long ago. YouTube 
is quite prompt about honoring anybody who comes along and claims 
copyright over a clip, and I can't picture them not hurrying to oblige 
The Mouse.
Not that this would keep him from being sued at any time, of course. It 
could still happen.
Kip W"
    @arthur: "In Message-ID:<3OPQo.7983$<email_address>>,
Kip Williams <email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
     Good point.  I missed that on the Youtube page.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @rabbdb: "<quote>
Fantasia was first shown in 1940 and distributed in a shortened version 
by RKO in 1941 (says Wikipedia).  When it was released it was under the 
protection of the Copyright law of 1909  28 years plus one 28 year 
extension (again Wikipedia).  So when Disney created Fantasia Walt knew 
it would become a public domain work 56 years later.  Well, it's after 
1996, but Fantasia is still in copyright... at the moment for another 49 
years-and-a-week.
How is it that retroactively changing the length of copyright of an 
already-existing work isn't an ex post facto law?  (Many) conservatives 
get all huffy when the government takes "something" from "someone" 
without "adequate compensation".  Congress has taken my ability to do a 
Fantasia mash-up for 64 years.  'Scuse me while I get all huffy.
     Rich Brown  rab  Song Assasin  FreeMars.org"
    @kip: "<quote>
Not in the time I've been paying attention, but that doesn't mean they 
don't "deny" it by various editing devices. They originally just made 
clumsy cuts to cover the omissions. More recently, they decided on tight 
framing to hide the existence of the underclass centaurettes (and note 
that there were never dusky centaurs in this wonderland). This at least 
let them keep the music as it was in the original � a bit scrambled and 
edited from Beethoven's version, but at least they didn't have to use 
those sudden jarring cuts.
Kip W"
    @brunsworks: "<quote>
Agreed.  Copyright was not a bad deal when it only lasted 14 years. 
Since then, it has increasingly been misused against consumersand even 
creators, whom it was supposed to protect.
It's time for a rollback.
Regards,
Perry"
    @garym: "<quote>
My understanding (IANAL) is that the concept of ex post facto laws 
applies to making something retroactively illegal. If the government 
extended copyright to restore copyrights that lapsed, and made 
republication during the period between the lapse and the restoration 
illegal, that would be an ex post facto law.
The takings clause is an interesting thought, but it's hard to say just 
whom something was taken from. It's not really like Kelo, where the 
issue was people's homes being taken for a non-public purpose (to 
benefit a private developer). I don't think you can say you have a 
property interest in having something go into the public domain.
But the Constitution says that Congress is authorized "To promote the 
Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to 
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings 
and Discoveries." Existing copyright law makes a joke of "for limited 
times." The Supreme Court specifically declined to consider what 
constitutes a reasonable limited time.
Gary McGath                      <url>
Rackspace: Web hosting for people whose ideas we approve of."
    @A1247: "On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 15:53:32 -0500, Arthur T. <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but copyrights are the law
right now and having this on Youtube is a copyright violation.
You may not like it or agree with it but it is the law. 
Here is a challenge for you: spend about four years of your 
life building a comprehensive software package.   Then waiit
for it to show up for free on the internet.   Then come back
and tell us how much you dislike Copyrigthts."
    @kay: "says...
<quote>
I seem to have conflated Silenus zebra-centaur companions with the 
little black centauress since I'd remembered her as a zebra. Forgot the 
face completely.  I don't recall noticing the lack of a date, but then 
I'm pretty sure I thought she was a child since she was much smaller 
than the others.
Kay Shapero
FAQ: <url>
address munged, email me at kay at domain name
<url>"
    @A1247: "On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:44:19 -0600, Rich Brown <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
One thing i'd point out is one of the reasons Disney cointinues to
make  Direct to DVD sequels of movies is to preserve their 
copyright.   
I would point out your desire has nothing to do with this,
the copyrigth holder holds the cards here and
has the full weight of the law behind them.  
As far as why it isn't an ex post facto law?  Because the 
Supreme Court hasn't ruled that it is by striking down
the copyright laws."
    @kip: "<quote>
It's not a fair comparison until he's been dead for decades and people 
who never even met him are making the money from it and lobbying 
Congress to keep extending their control over his work.
Kip W"
    @garym: "<quote>
...
Has anyone claimed that it isn't? 
That's exactly the problem! 
I haven't noticed anyone here saying copyright should be abolished.
When people bring out "it is the law" as an argument, particularly when 
the content of the law hasn't been disputed, I get the impression that 
they're saying "Because it has been enacted in law it's right." Law and 
right are two entirely different things and often fail to coincide.
Gary McGath                      <url>
Rackspace: Web hosting for people whose ideas we approve of."
    @garym: "<quote>
...
They haven't been seen in any release of Fantasia for decades.
Gary McGath                      <url>
Rackspace: Web hosting for people whose ideas we approve of."
    @leegold: "Because I honor Mark Twain & Rudyard Kipling, I feel I should print here 
what they had to say about it.  It's from Kipling's FROM SEA TO SEA, 
written in 1899, chronicling his meeting with Mark Twain.
Lee
	I became aware that [Mark Twain] was discussing the copyright question. 
  Here, so far as I remember, is what he said.  Attend to the words of 
the oracle through this unworthy medium transmitted.  You will never be 
able to imagine the long, slow surge of the drawl, and the deadly 
gravity of the countenance, the quaint pucker of the body, one foot 
thrown over the arm of the chair, the yellow pipe clinched in one corner 
of the mouth, and the right hand casually caressing the square chin:
	"Copyright?  Some men have morals, and some men have  other things. 
I presume a publisher is a man.  He is not born.  He is created  by 
circumstances.  Some publishers have morals....
	"There is a great deal of nonsense talked about international 
copyright.  The proper way to treat a copyright is to make it exactly 
like real-estate in every way.  It will settle itself under these 
conditions.  If Congress were to bring in a law that a man's life was 
not to extend over a hundred and sixty years, somebody would laugh. 
That law wouldn't concern anybody.  The man would be out of the 
jurisdiction of the court. A term of years in copyright comes to exactly 
the same thing.  No law can make a book live or cause it to die before 
the appointed time....
	"Let Bill Smith, equally with Mr. Shakespeare now deceased, have as 
complete a control over his copyright as he would over his real estate. 
  Let him gamble it away, drink it away or  give it to the church. 
Let his heirs and assigns treat it in the same manner....
	"I put [this]... view of the case before...[a Senator].
	"He said, 'Suppose a man has written a book that will live for 
ever?....I want to protect the world against that man's heirs and 
assigns, working under your theory.'
	"I said, 'You think that all the world has no common sense.  The book 
that will live for ever can't be artificially kept up at inflated 
prices.  There will always be very expensive editions of it and cheap 
ones issuing side by side.'
	"Take the case of Sir Walter Scott's novels. ...When the copyright 
notes protected them, I bought editions as expensive as I could afford, 
because I liked them. At the same time, the same firm were selling 
editions that a cat might buy.  They had their real estate and, not 
being fools, recognized that one portion of the plot could be worked as 
a gold mine, another as a vegetable garden, and another as a marble 
quarry. Do you see?"
	What I saw with the greatest clearness was Mark Twain being forced to 
fight for the simple proposition that a man has as much right to the 
work of his brains (think of the heresy of it!) as to the labour of his 
hands.  When the old lion roars, the young whelps growl. I growled 
assentingly, and the talk ran on...."
    @leegold: "<quote>
The zebra ladies attending Bacchus are on the Official Disney videotape 
of Fantasia we purchased.  The black centaurette isn't.
Lee"
    @astonmartinbentley: "<quote>
Just to confirm what I think I am reading: is Twain suggesting copyright
be kept by a creator and his heirs in perpetuity?
I wonder if he would feel the same about corporations doing so, rather
than individuals. Although I suppose that there is no major reason to
assume that he would not.
mtb
Families are like fudge... mostly sweet with a few nuts."
    @kip: "<quote>
"Why can't women go to the stoning, Mum?"
"Because it is WRITTEN, that's why!"
   Monty Python's Life of Brian
Kip W"
    @leegold: "<quote>
I think he's suggesting it should last at least for all the creator's life.
I don't know.  It didn't happen in his day.
I also don't know what he'd think about writing something as a "work for 
hire" for a corporation.
Or what he'd think of a writer refusing to let a work be kept in 
publication.
Lee"
    @kip: "<quote>
Or what he'd think of a company that owns a series of (for instance) 
animated cartoons who declines to release them (even as the masters 
deteriorate), yet will prosecute someone who releases a bootleg.
Kip W"
    @arthur: "In Message-ID:<if22se$rs2$<email_address>>,
Lee Gold <email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
     Much as I dislike to disagree with a master, I do.
     Twain had a much better opinion of people than I do, I guess.
Other people don't have the same desires that I do, and what they do
does not always please me as Twain was pleased by the self-interest of
publishers.  I'm reminded of this sig I once saw:
The anti-regulation business ethos is based on
the charmingly naive notion that people will not
do unspeakable things for money. -Dana Carpender
     I also specifically disagree with
     What sparked this discussion is something that people would be
willing to pay money for that isn't legally offered at any price.
     One thing I do agree with, in part, is his likening of copyright
to real estate.  When some people copies a work, they don't see that
they've done any harm, and wonder why it's illegal.  Trespass might
also not harm real estate, but it's a reasonable analogy.  If you
wouldn't walk into a man's house uninvited, don't copy his works
uninvited.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @A1247: "On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:04:39 -0500, Gary McGath
<quote>
Essentially yes, they're bitching that that xxxxxxxxxx video is
not available in it's original form.  As the law stands the
copyright holder has the rigth release or not releae as
their work. 
Why is that a problem.   If i've created a work that 
is copyrighted it's not a problem for me.
Well you actually are when you say you want to see xxxx video as
was orignallly made.  
If  the copy right holder doesn't want it shown than he/she has that
right.l
I don't want to go to jail so I follow the law.   You may not like the
law but that doesn't give you the right to break the law.."
    @arthur: "In Message-ID:<email_address>,
Gary McGath <email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
 <various drivel including:>
     Thanks, Gary.  You responded much less passionately than I could
have.  When someone seemingly-deliberately misreads my words, I can't
help but feel upset.  I clearly stated that it was a question of law
vs. ethics, but he seems to have missed that.
     Certainly there are times to obey the law purely because it's the
law.  There are also times to disobey the law.  And it should always
be proper to question the law; laws are made by men for men and not
handed down from on high, and men often make mistakes.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @brunsworks: "<quote>
Good to know.  Care to tell me who's going to win the next few Super 
Bowls there, Nostradamus? ;)
Regards,
Perry"
    @arthur: "In Message-ID:<if37vd$48s$<email_address>>,
"P.F. Bruns" <email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
     You misunderstand him.  If it looks like the president will sign
a bill making it so, he'll kill himself.  He didn't say it wouldn't be
in your lifetime, only that it wouldn't be in his.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @366: "On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:06:22 GMT, <email_address> (Harold
<quote>
Which the copyright holder has every rigth to do.   
No matter how much someone wants to see it the
copy right holder has every right to only release what
he/she wants.
It is like George Lucas and Star Wars, he would
have been within his rights to refuse to release 
the original Star Wars prior to the later changes.
Finally the Copy right holder ultimately has the
right to refuse to release his/her work in
any form at any time. "
    @A1247: "<quote>
In fact i'll go as far as to predict with this pro business/pro
corporation supreme court and the pro business/pro
corporation congress and the pro business/pro corporation 
presidency that copy rights may well be extended for
alot longer/for eternity/for perpetuity.   
Part of that is due to the digital revolution (computers/
the internet/you tube/etc.)
This digital revolution may well spell the end
of "public domain" as we know it for those
things not in the public domain already."
    @A1247: "On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 17:48:02 -0500, "P.F. Bruns"
<quote>
Actually I know who will win the super bowl for the next several
seasons......Tom Brady (the greatest quarter back ever) and the New
England Patriots.
THE THREE SUPER BOWL CHAMPION NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS.
(That never gets old.)
As far as how I know this about copyrights.......Big Buisiness owns
the courts/the President/Congress lock stock and barrel.  Were you
asleep when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can
spent unlimited amounts on campaigns to buy an election?"
    @A1247: "<quote>
The bottom line here is the length of a copyright will be extended 
for many more years (if not forever) is because
1.   Big business owns the president/congress/the courts lock
stock and barrel.
2.  The ease of copying works in the digital age.
3.  Big business can spend unlimited amounts of money
now elections.
Go read up on the recent rulings of the supreme court."
    @A1247: "On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 14:50:18 -0500, Arthur T. <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
This is not a case where you should disobey the law.........unless you
want to end up in jail or on the wrong end of a mulit million
dollar judgement.
You may not like the law and you're more than welcoem to try and
change it but in the mean time if you want to stay out 
of jail and avoid a multi million dollar judgement you'll avoid
violating the law.
You can always question the law but be mindful that if you
violate the law those men on high have the power to
send you to jail and/or issue a multi million dollar judgement.
Go read up on Citizens United."
    @arthur: "In Message-ID:<email_address>,
<email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
     I asked a question about ethics and morals.  You replied with
law.  I suggested the law may not be right.  You said that it doesn't
matter because it will only get worse.  I post using the ID I always
do here.  You replied with two different numeric IDs.
     I won't see any more of your replies unless you use yet a third
ID to make it look like more people share your opinions.  I've plonked
this ID and your 366 one.
     We don't get many trolls on rmf, so it generally takes me some
time to recognize one.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @garym: "<quote>
The First Amendment was created a couple of centuries ago.
"Big Business" is not a single entity. When businesses use government to 
gain political advantage, they are more often than not aiming at each 
other.
Citizens United is not a business, big or otherwise. The game of 
attacking the free speech of advocacy organizations by pretending 
they're giant corporations is a transparent one.
The president and Congress had no role in the Citizens United ruling.
But why am I arguing with someone who won't even give a name?
Gary McGath                      <url>
Rackspace: Web hosting for people whose ideas we approve of."
    @366: "On Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:14:43 -0500, Kip Williams
<quote>
Yes you still have the right to complain.  You don't 
have the right to break the law."
    @sandy: "<quote>
OBAMA is pro-business??  In what reality?  Please read what Gary 
(McGath) has written carefully.  He is correct.
But here is a question on the copyright subject for discussion:  Some 
copyrights (and many patents) are owned by corporations not people. 
Corporations do not die. (They do sometimes go bankrupt, of course.) 
Corporate income, and thus salaries of the workers, depend on the 
corporation continuing to make a profit. Should such copyrights and 
patents be treated differently from those belonging to individual persons?
What is the difference between these copyrights/patents and "trade 
secrets"?
Sandy"
    @arthur: "In Message-ID:<if7u9p$heg$<email_address>>,
Sandy Tyra <email_address> wrote: 
<quote>
     "Congress shall have the power [...] to promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and
discoveries."
	IANAL, but here is my take on that as it applies to your
question.  Intellectual Property (IP) is not for the benefit of the
creator, except as incentive to create.  It's for the benefit of the
country as a whole.  If you think that a company will create something
useful only if it will get a longer exclusive right, then you might
favor longer protections.  For instance, drug companies say that the
long testing required *after* patenting but *before* the drug can be
marketed is keeping them from investigating some drugs.  If we believe
them, we'd have reasonable grounds for extending their patents.
     Another question is whether companies *should* have the same
rights as people.  (We know they *do*, and that the Supreme Court
continues to give them those rights.)
     In my view, a company should have less rights than a real person.
(I am also still waiting for a death penalty sentence in a case of
corporate criminal case.  After all, if a corporation is a
"person"....)  Thus I would be against extending their rights to IP
beyond what a real person has.  While it's true that more people are
dependent on the IP income, there are also more people available to
create new IP for more revenue.
	IANAL.
     Copyrights and patents are public record and cannot be secret.
By making them supposedly available for free after a certain amount of
time, you then get the right to sue anyone who uses your ideas before
then.  You can keep a trade secret for as long as you can keep a
secret.  However, once the secrecy is breached, you're out of luck and
anyone can make use of that information.  Also, unlike patent and
copyright, if someone else independently comes up with your idea, they
can use it; if you can't show that they illegally stole your secret,
you have no right to stop them.
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com"
    @rabbdb: "<quote>
I hate to bring this up for fear that Congress and the Supremes will 
latch onto the idea, but I suppose "until the end of the universe" is 
technically a "limited time"... 
... on the bright side, various people (ahem... Ray Kurzweil
<url>
Ray_Kurzweil_predictions#Post-2045:_.22Waking_up.22_the_Universe )
predict immortality is Right Around The Corner.  Maybe we could go back 
to the Supremes and argue that "life plus 90 years" is NOT a limited time 
and thus is not Constitutional. :-)
I would settle for 30 days in solitary confinement:  padlocks on the 
doors, no phone calls, no bank transactions, no Internet connection, and 
certainly no conjugal visits (in the case of a corporation, that's the 
kind where someone brings cash/checkbook/credit card.)
...but we digress.  Overflow, anyone?  The number people won't be there.
    Rich Brown  rab  Song Assasin  FreeMars.org"
    @A1247: "On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 09:33:50 -0800, Sandy Tyra <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
Were you asleep when Obama bent over backwards to help wall street
and not main street?"
    @A1247: "On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:34:53 -0500, Arthur T. <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
Theoretically it is possible although I don't recall ever seeing it
happen..........they've been able to break the corporate veil
to prosecute CEOs in some cases.   Theoretially they could
do it.   
At some point patents and copyrights will go too far and the public
will rebel.   For example a corporation can hold a patent on the
mapping of your own personal DNA.   (60 minutes a few months back)
So in theory you can be diagnosed with a rare disease and the doctors
and you can't get that diagnosis since your DNA mapping is a trade
secret owned by a corporation."
    @A1247: "On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:56:35 -0600, Rich Brown <email_address>
wrote:
<quote>
Medical science is rapidly reaching the point where a human could
potentially live to be 300-400 years old.   I for one would 
not want to live past 90-100 years since various compenents of the
human body start to give out.   
They can break the corporate veil for stuff like fraud, environmental 
crimes, etc. so why can't a CEO get jail time/death penalty?
Lets start with people on Wall Street  who flushed the economy down
the toilet in recent years."
    @brunsworks: "[yadda yadda yadda]
<quote>
Are you suggesting that he intended to do so?  If so, I don't see where 
you got that from his side of the discussion; if not, do you have a point?
Regards,
Perry
P.S. and pick an email address already!"
    @garym: "wrote:
This looks like another alias for whatsitsnumber. I guess we'll have to 
play whackamole on our killfiles for a while.
Gary McGath                      <url>
Rackspace: Web hosting for people whose ideas we approve of."
    @garym: "<quote>
I seriously disagree. Your property right in your home or car is not 
"for the benefit of the country as a whole." It's to protect you. You, 
not the country as a whole, have expended time and effort to earn the 
money to buy those things and can't just give them up. The same applies 
to things you create yourself, whether physical artifacts or ones which 
exist as ideas. If you create something, others can benefit from its 
use, and you can't set any conditions of compensation, they're doing you 
an injustice.
The "country as a whole" justification is an ugly one. It says that the 
government's function is to maximize the amount of output it gets from 
creators. If this is what justifies copyright, it could also justify 
punishing creators for not continuing to create.
The two kinds of property can't be exactly analogous, and many 
discussions of intellectual property founder on the assumption that the 
rights in each case must be exactly the same. In the case of 
non-physical property, the creation can't be taken from you in the same 
way, but your interest in it can be damaged by the way other people use 
it. A closer analogy (which someone on this NG mentioned recently) is 
trespass on land which you own.
Physical objects need some kind of ongoing upkeep, at least a storage 
place for them. If they don't get this, they'll be considered abandoned. 
Copyright should similarly be tied to keeping a work available in some 
form. The "orphan works" problem is one of the biggest bugaboos of 
copyright: stuff which is "owned" by someone, but whose owner can't be 
identified or found. Those works fall into a limbo where no one can 
publish them and no one is benefiting from them.
Even with continued publication, a time limit is reasonable. It's the 
original act of creation which merits compensation, and when it's far 
enough in the past, the creator-beneficiary relationship has to expire 
at some point. This is a very vague argument, I admit. But all the 
people who created "Steamboat Willie" are dead, and since copyright fall 
in the category of compensation for work done, it doesn't make sense for 
it to be an inheritable right. (Mark Twain thought otherwise, as I read 
him.)
The rights of a company are simply the rights of individuals acting in 
concert. Should the New York Times have a reduced free-press right 
because it's owned by a company? That wouldn't leave many 
large-circulation publications with full freedom of the press.
The death penalty is an issue of responsibilities, not rights. It's 
individuals who commit crimes. Torts are a different matter, being a 
matter of obligation rather than action. I've considered the idea that 
the idea of corporate crime should be abolished, and all crimes ascribed 
to the individuals who commit them (including superiors who order 
employees to commit crimes or set requirements that necessitate crimes). 
Not all rights can sensibly be aggregated in a company or corporation 
without some modification. It wouldn't be meaningful for a corporation 
to get married (in the literal sense, not a merger), for instance. With 
copyright, the only significant issue I can think of is that tying it to 
the life of the creator becomes messy. It starts to become messy even in 
simple cases of co-creators, such as a song with a lyricist and a 
composer. But if the principle is that there's a "statute of 
limitations" on IP ownership, it can apply even if one of the creators 
acquires the elixir of immortality.
Gary McGath                      <url>
Rackspace: Web hosting for people whose ideas we approve of."
    @kip: "<quote>
I'm in the introduction to the new edition of his autobiography (volume 
1), and was surprised to see him say that he was concerned for his 
children, and his grandchildren could take care of themselves. Yet in 
other places, he's taking steps to keep his work in copyright for as 
long as he possibly can. One use he makes of sections of his 
autobiography (which he dictates, going from subject to subject as his 
mood strikes him) is to attach it to older works and make them freshly 
copyrightable.
I suspect he'd be open to plans to extend copyright as far as it is now, 
and maybe farther. I agree with him on a lot of stuff, but not this, 
Maybe it's because I'm not a writer like him.
Kip W"
    @leegold: "<quote>
Dredging up old memories from a 1960s Political Science class, it was 
established in terms of a constitutional amendment which guaranteed 
persons due process.
Lee, who isn't going to comment on this stuff any more unless I can 
get my comments to rhyme and scan.  Is there anyone discussing it who 
can't get Overflow?"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 43, "forum_name": "rec.music.filk.20141209.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-rec.music.parquet'}