Re: If It Works For Drugs, Why Not Words?

jonathan aubrey (porkstore@yahoo.com)
Fri, 18 Oct 2002 12:18:03 -0700 (PDT)

I Dunno,
Personally, I'm sick of people talking about
individual authors when criticizing copyright law.
It's a diversion as far as I'm concerned. Why
shouldn't so-and-so's estate make a few bucks off of
his writings if they're still so danged popular 70
years later? The real culprits here are the corporate
copyrighters who want to hold onto the rights, and the
dough that comes with them, for as long as possible,
perhaps indefinitely if they could. I say, leave
Norman Mailer alone and concentrate on stickin' it to
da man - Microsoft, Disney, take your pick.

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised*,"
Jon A.

*Gil Scott Heron, 1974.

--- Chris McNevins <Chris.McNevins@uconn.edu> wrote:
> Here's an article by John M. Moran which appeared
> in the HARTFORD COURANT
> on October 17, 2002 that has an intriguing take on
> copyright:
>
>
http://www.ctnow.com/technology/hc-moran1017.artoct17.story

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com