Copyright laws need to be changed. I could honestly support the right of someone to their music or other artwork for a limited time. Maybe 10 years. I would see the logic and fairness to it. On the other hand, and in reality, it is laws like this and in the US that make me not support copyright laws.

How is it that I could invent a new engine getting 500 miles per gallon, and it would be mine for 14 to 20 years? By the time it got into mass production, it would be ready to expire.

Throw some nasty body fluid in a jar and call it art--it is yours for life. Yell some words into a mic and it is yours for life. You can even try to sue people for using it in a way you did not approve . . .

Can you imagine trying to sue someone for using the car you sold them in a manner you did not approve of? They would laugh you out of court.

So, it's a surprise that politicians and courts (they are all lawyers for gods sake) can be rented by other lawyers?

Originally posted by gallagher:

---

How is it that I could invent a new engine getting 500 miles per gallon, and it would be mine for 14 to 20 years? By the time it got into mass production, it would be ready to expire.

---

Or you could have come up with the nickel metal hydride battery like Ovshinsky did, who sold the patent to GM, who sold it to Texaco, who got bought out by Chevron. Yeah that's right, we already have the perfect technology for electric cars but we can't use it due to patent laws.

Originally posted by bomber991:

---

Or you could have come up with the nickel metal hydride battery like Ovshinsky did, who sold the patent to GM, who sold it to Texaco, who got bought out by Chevron. Yeah that's right, we already have the perfect technology for electric cars but we can't use it due to patent laws.

---

I'm slightly confused by this comment as we already use nickel metal hydrides in electric cars and hybrids. Also patents have nothing to do with copyright and only last for 20 years. Since most of Ovshinsky's patents were granted in the 60's and 70's they no longer apply.

Copyright extentions are the mere attempt of the recording industry to stay alive. If more artists start to go off on their own to actually make profits from their own music, then the recording industry will be going on a downward spiral. By holding onto the copyrights of the music, the recording industry can still try to make some sort of profit.

With fair use being a crime and public domain quietly swept under a rug the world silently falls to the corporate state....

cmcjk, you missed the point. If patents had the same deal as copyrights, Ovshinsky would be making money for decades.

The point is, patents which require real resorces expire before the invention is in its prime. An idea like a song written in a night has protection that lasts a century in the US. That is because the media industry spends a huge amount of money on lobbiests. It isn't the least bit fair but that is the way it is. I doubt that the copyrights will ever expire. They will just keep adding a 25 year extention to what ever it was. Who will stop them? The media industries are very effective parasites.