Re: Ancient wares and present values

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Charles Richmond wrote:

> Frank Townsend wrote:
> >
> > The US Constitution does not specify the term of copyright, but grants to
> > the Congress the power to specify that term.
> >
> > The current term as enacted by Congress is as follows:
> >
> > "Works Originally Created On or After January 1, 1978

>
> And they are out of their ever-loving minds!!!
>
> IMHO the copyleft people

Is that a political comment? If so, please note the date of that law - 1978. Just in
case it was before you were born, both houses of Congress and the White House were
all controlled by the same political party... and it isn't one that's on the right of
the political spectrum.

Personally, I think the law is a bit nuts myself. It quite likely was created for the
purpose of protecting the income of the publisher rather than the author. But the
people had spoken in November 1976, the "representatives of the people" passed it in
both houses of Congress, and Mr. Carter (who whipped Jerry Ford soundly) signed it
into law. Don't blame me, everybody I voted for lost that year.

> have the right idea (mostly)...you get paid for creating
> something and for supporting it, but *not* for re-selling it for the
> next upteen
> years while supported by an artificial barrier for others to use and
> sell it...
>

However, after copyright drops off, anyone can sell it. And perhaps that's the point.
The author and/or the author's heirs should get royalties, not the bank accounts of
publishing houses that only publish public domain works.

Roy