Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #240285
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.) |
| Date | 2021-09-23 13:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <D0vf3-2Ca-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <D0hON-2Iz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <D0lfH-4BV-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <D0mv7-5CM-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:12:49 PM Gene Heskett wrote: > Or the ARRL forgot to renew the copyright. Copyrights were originally > issued for a period of 7 years, renewable once for an additional 7 > years. Hmm, without looking it up, I thought the 7/7 years was for patents, and copyright was a little different (maybe like 13/13?)? (But Gene probably remembers better than I do.) > Along comes Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse, and Walt had money > enough to get the law changed so we have the current never expires > situation by including corporations such as Disney in it definitions of > authors. If its ever been renewed. But the law today gives me automatic > copyright over what I write without additional public notice, I think > for 90 years after I die. Something like that, but doesn't sound quite right (wish I had a better memory). Previously copyrighted works are coming into the "public domain" year by year, about 95 years after -- oh, maybe it is after the author's death? Maybe there is an alternate path to copyright expiring? Not sure how it works if a corporation owns a copyright -- I don't think it is perpetual. And, at least some of the relevant laws differ by nation. > There is something wrong with this picture. 14 years was considered as > the author having milked his writings for 99% of all they would ever > generate in income. IMNSHO it (the original version) is still a good > idea. Stealing an individuals creativity, and his rewards for being > creative by awarding the copyright to a corporation, is theft pure and > simple, Hmm, I don't think the copyright law nor the government award the copyright to a corporation. If a corporation gets a copyright (or patent) that is based on some explicit contractual or implicit (like the "work for hire" doctrine) agreement > Cheers, Gene Heskett
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The future of computing. harryweaver@tutanota.com - 2021-09-22 23:20 +0200
Re: The future of computing. Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2021-09-23 03:00 +0200
Re: The future of computing. harryweaver@tutanota.com - 2021-09-23 04:00 +0200
Re: The future of computing. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-09-23 04:20 +0200
Re: The future of computing. Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 04:30 +0200
Re: The future of computing. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-09-23 05:20 +0200
Re: The future of computing. Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2021-09-23 12:40 +0200
OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-23 13:40 +0200
Re: OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.) Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-09-23 14:50 +0200
Re: OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.) Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2021-09-24 09:50 +0200
Re: OT: Copyrights and patents (was: Re: The future of computing.) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-09-24 15:30 +0200
csiph-web