At a friends house and got talking about stories. I showed her a dream I had a few years back and noted down on my LJ. As she was reading it through, something hit me.
There was something about you with your roots showing the other day that I couldn't quite place. It hit me though as she was reading the dream. You're the spitting image of Ed in the dream!
I'm kinda tired right now, but had we actually met at the time I had this dream..? O_o
http://sci.livejournal.com/208754.html
Didn't get around to responding to this beforehand...
I haven't signed this (yet)... On the one hand I think life plus seventy years is wrong... but on the other, I think fifty years is wrong too. Cliff Richard has been complaining that it means his income from his earlier works is going to dry up, and whilst I disagree with his contention that copyright should be life plus ninety years, I agree with his original point.
Now, one could ask why he should be able to continue gaining income from something he did fifty years ago, but I think to an extent that is another question. This is how our copyright system works: artists get royalties for something they did in the past.
From my philosophical perspective I think both literary and recorded copyright should be no more than life plus twenty-five years. I agree strongly with the contention that works should be able to pass eventually into the public domain; but I disagree with that that copyright should last so little time artists loss copyright on their own works in their own lifetime.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:48 pm (UTC)Out of interest, what do you think of the life + 70 years term on compositions, writing, etc.?
no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 01:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-13 10:43 pm (UTC)Unrelated
Date: 2006-12-14 01:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-17 03:05 pm (UTC)I haven't signed this (yet)... On the one hand I think life plus seventy years is wrong... but on the other, I think fifty years is wrong too. Cliff Richard has been complaining that it means his income from his earlier works is going to dry up, and whilst I disagree with his contention that copyright should be life plus ninety years, I agree with his original point.
Now, one could ask why he should be able to continue gaining income from something he did fifty years ago, but I think to an extent that is another question. This is how our copyright system works: artists get royalties for something they did in the past.
From my philosophical perspective I think both literary and recorded copyright should be no more than life plus twenty-five years. I agree strongly with the contention that works should be able to pass eventually into the public domain; but I disagree with that that copyright should last so little time artists loss copyright on their own works in their own lifetime.
Thoughts?