Key words there are 'limited time'. Creativity in the USA is being stifled by folks trying to extend for an indefinite
time copyrights and patents. You cannot protect intellectual property.

--
Dan D.



..
"Bob Fry" wrote in message ...
(DBlumel) writes:

A buck per song is not bad? Are you nuts? That is as much or more than you
would pay for a factory made cd, even more, when you consider the cost of
the blank data disk.

The only fair thing to do is rip off the music industry as bad as you can,
for overcharging us for music all these years.
--
Jim in NC

Sorry Jim, we live in a free market economy. If you don't want to buy because
the price is too high in your estimation, that's your choice. But you cannot
justify stealing because you think they charge too much.

Sure you can. I justify it for this reason:

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;" US Constitution, Article I,
Section 8, Clause 8.

The US Congress passed a law which Clinton signed which extends
copyright for some works to nearly 100 years! Does that sound like
"limited times to authors"? Hell no! Congress some time ago ruined
the original intent of copyright and patents, and electronic
reproduction of text, images, and sound has made the whole notion even
more meaningless. Why is it that the little guy is forced to follow
some law which big corporations forced upon the populace; but those
big corporations don't have to follow the Constitution?

I'm for the original intent of the Constitution: authors of works
should enjoy exclusive right to their works for a limited time; then
they're up for grabs. Especially in today's rapid-paced, instantly
connected world--far different than 200+ years ago--"limited time"
should be something between 5 to 10 years for most works, probably
only 3 to 5 years for software.