Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Permalink for comment 460308
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-01-05
Again, please note the title of my original reply. BTW, I should have gotten around to saying that I completely agree that different rules should probably apply to scientific research - _especially_ that paid for by public funds.
Big Content (and the egregiously corrupt lobbying that they're allowed to get away with) is the problem, not the concept of copyright itself. Again, modern copyright law is the lifeblood of the independent artist. Fix the (often illegal) sway over the system exerted by the large media conglomerates, and stick with the original 75-year (or whatever) copyright limits, and we're probably good on the entertainment front. Scientific publications should be a separate case, with a separate solution.