<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Richard M Stallman wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LGzRw-00067B-0c@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> <blockquote cite=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mid:E1LGYC4-000898-8H@fencepost.gnu.org">"mid:E1LGYC4-000898-8H@fencepost.gnu.org"</a> type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This means that the problem would be corrected over a period of 150 years.</pre>
</blockquote>
Wrong.
It is literally true.
</pre>
</blockquote>
You talk about the problem, but what is the problem?<br>
<br>
- after <b>zero days</b> you'll have <b>new works</b> working under
the <b>new legal framework</b><br>
- after <b>fifty years or less</b> you'll be able to use to freely (no
matter whether commercially or not) <b>play & distribute all
existing editions of intellectual works</b> (yes you read it: 100 % of
existing editions)<br>
<br>
I think that such scenario is enormous, glorious; however, you think
it's not enough; then:<br>
<br>
- after <b>seventy years</b> <b>or less</b> you'll be able to have <b>all
4 GNU freedoms</b> on both <b>post-change </b>works<b> and</b> works <b>by
authors dead prior to the change</b> (which percentage of existing
works means that?)<br>
<br>
however, you still think that having just 2 out of 4 GNU freedoms on
Bowie, Jackson, McCartney and such's greatest hits is not enough:<br>
<br>
- after <b>a hundred years or less</b> you'll be able to have <b>all
4 GNU freedoms</b>, <b>also, on their works</b> (which percentage is
it now?)<br>
<br>
Then, Richard, if we assume that -as I'm afraid it is- retroactive
measures wouldn't fit withing current rule of law -and you said in one
of your last mails "<i>none of us is proposing a revolution in that
sense</i>"-; and as, even including contemporary works, <b>the amount
of current works not being fully free after a hundred of years would be
marginal</b> -also, considering that after the change of the legal
framework, many authors probably would re-license their works
-specially if people turns towards post-change works (and works
re-licensed with post-change rules)-; then, of course, the 150-year
thing you talk about is, in my opinion, wrong.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LGzRw-00067B-0c@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thus, if we change the law only for future works, the existing copyrights will expire over coming 150 years. Our grandchildren might see the end of it.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I we make it, we'll see the end of current legal framework right now;
and if you have children, they will see editions of pre-change
intellectual works' play & distribution being free. Thus, I think
your analysis is exaggerated, even wrong.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:E1LGzRw-00067B-0c@fencepost.gnu.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Perhaps you would be satisfied with this, but I would rather keep working to win freedom sooner.</pre>
</blockquote>
If "<i>none of us is proposing a revolution in that sense</i>", thus, I
think you should be extremely satisfied with the scheme I've showed you
-i.e., having all pre-change works being free for playing &
distributing them after less than 50 years, and having post-change
works under new legal framework since the first day-. Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Ayala<br>
( Aiarakoa )<br>
<br>
Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman<br>
</body>
</html>