Ah, Copyright laws... the way to make sure that people who had not a single thing to do with creating something get to profit from it for decades after the death of the actual creator, many times when the actual creator didn't get a thing out of it.

I can see having copyright laws last for the life of the creator. But after? fark it.

And if a property is owned by a corporation? Maybe they get to hold a copyright on it for as long as 40 or 50 years, but that's it. But stuff that was created during the motherfarking great depression should not be clogging up courts to see whether a corporation or a creator's cousin's brother's uncle's nephew's twice removed aunt's chauffeur's brother should be the one who gets the copyright (like is currently happening with Superman).

Jake Havechek: Well there is this place called the library. In the library they have books that you can read for free.

what are you, 90?

Jake Havechek: Well there is this place called the library. In the library they have books that you can read for free.

Not if folks like the RIAA had their way. Under the laws they propose Libraries would be liable to be shut down for unauthorized information sharing. (They are already limiting how many times a Library can "loan" an e-book before they claim they have to buy a new copy)

Remember these are also the folks who asserted, with a straight face, that selling your CDs to a used CD store was a violation of your "terms of use" in buying the CD and who have made doing the same thing with "used" I-tunes tracks impossible


One of the few pleasures in my life was calling the Librarian of Congress a farking liar to his face (and proving it) after he asserted, during a talk at my law school, that the sudden extension of copyrights he proposed just as Mickey Mouse should have come into the public domain was pure coincidence and had nothing to do with Disney.

The fact is, the very idea that a performance is a commoditizable thing deserving of property protections is less than 125 years old and may be one of the greater legal mistakes we've ever made. These protections don't make the performers rich, just large media companies. So in present form they are useless as a way to promote the useful societal purpose (encouraging more art and rewarding artists) they once had

WeenerGord: Greedy farking money grubbing coont bastards. It's all about the benjamins.

I do feel for the kids somewhat. Their dad was an American Icon, a legendary figure in our history. And unlike ex-presidents, or generals, etc who can go on speaking tours and deliver six-figure adresses after their public service is done to secure their family's future; he was never given that chance, but instead eas taken from them violently and horrifically at a young age leaving nothing but his legacy behind.

I kinda feel like some sort of IP "eminent domain" should be exercised here. The kids get a, one-time, 6-7 figure, check and then everything he ever said, or wrote is in the public domain for good.

Jack Black 62: I don't know why "people" are still worshiping a drunk, womanizer, plagiarizer, and communist sympathizer. But then again, most Americans were "educated" in a government school.

You know, every so often I need a reminder that the Almighty works in mysterious ways far beyond my ken, and then you come along, and remind me of his ineffable decision to create far more horse's asses than he did horses to put them on, and I am once again humbled