From: Pip Chodorov (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2008 - 13:35:25 PDT
read the Kevin Kelly article I posted a link to earlier.
Interestingly, opyright was first limited to 14 years in order to
incite authors to write more frequently. It was extended over the
years, as authors demanded protection for recorded material (the
phenomenon of the rich artist, i.e. The Beatles, is new to the last
century). Corporations then lobbied government extensively to protect
their publications, as you suggest, well beyond the life of the
author, especially film companies like Disney. The purpose and use of
copyright is being challenged by the concept of the global library
(and indeed even local libraries for printed matter were opposed by
publishers when they were first proposed). Nobody would question the
validity of a lending library, provided the library pays for the work
they lend out. But that is the difference between piracy and fair use.
At 15:59 -0400 10/06/08, Lisa Oppenheim wrote:
> Copyright exists to protect corporations not artists. It seems
>like an obvious point, but one that has been lost in this discussion.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.