Posted by Phin on 04/24/06 16:46

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:38:47 -0700, "nu-monet v8.0"
<nothing@succeeds.com> wrote:

>They are trying a scattershot approach of continually introducing
>legislation with the idea that if something, anything, gets through,
>they win big time.
>
>And they're right. That's a proven technique. The only counter
>is to introduce counter-legislation to halt their offensive.
>
>This is why I propose, and hope others will advocate, a change in
>copyright law to make it more like, of all things, US mining law.
>
>That is, in mining, about anyone can stake a claim anywhere, but
>they must improve that claim and show a profit on an annual basis
>or they lose their claim.
>
>In the case of copyright law, this would mean that copyright
>protection would only continue for a product that is sold in
>retail public sale each and every year for a particular minimum
>net profit.
>
>This would mean that the vast libraries of copyrighted material
>that the media industry owns, but just sits on, never marketing
>but never allowing it to be marketed by anyone else, would become
>public domain, unless they could sell it, each and every year.
>
>This goes to the very heart of copyright--the granting of a
>temporary monopoly to encourage new products, but for a limited
>time, to help stimulate business.
>
>This proposed law is very fair. It just prevents businesses who
>*don't* want to sell a product from inhibiting other businesses
>who *do* want to sell that product.
>
>Of course such a law would cause an utter panic in the media
>industry, and they would divert all kinds of resources to stop
>of from ever happening. But by forcing them into the defense,
>perhaps it would make them less able to attack everybody else's
>freedoms.


Something like you describe would actually make SENSE.

And we don't do things that way here.



-=-Phin
---

Check out my books:

http://www.lulu.com/pnarco

[Back to original message]