Re: Asimov Site

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

Sandra Warnken wrote in message ...
>You're putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my brain that aren't
>mine.  The way you do it makes me mad.  We aren't perfect and the laws are
>made by lawyers to create business for themselves.  A professor pointed
>out that the lawyer is an extension of English law 1590s style.  Two
>knights representing each party go out on a field and beat each other to a
>bloody pulp.  The winner of the match gets the victory.  **** ****


    A few things are in order then. First, I apologize if for being unfair,
but do me the favor of explaining a bit more what it is you are trying to
explain.

    Second, you seem to recognize a truth here. Yes, lawyers only serve to
make work for themselves, and are parasites. Law should be simplified enough
that everyone can understand it and defend themselves. It doesn't have to be
a paragraph long, but trimming it down to around 1500 pages can't be too
much to ask. Congressmen who aren't capable or unwilling to make it that
small, or keeping it that small, should be convicted of high treason and
sentenced to death. That, and their salaries should never be more than that
which is considered just above poverty level (sub-$20,000 range). You
probably won't agree with such, but it's only my opinion.

>It's not that the law says the author has control of their rights.  It's a
>way to control the folks who feeel they are entitled to have what they
>want irregardless of who says no.

    What does this mean? That you believe that I should be controlled, when
I won't listen to bribed congressmen who extend copyright for 20 years, just
because Goofy and Pluto are in danger of becoming public domain? Maybe I'm
reading too much into this, but it certainly seems as if you are buying into
some of the intellectual property propaganda.

John