<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Petition Surfaces to Restore Copyright Term to 28 Years in US</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/101562/petition-surfaces-restore-copyright-term-28-years-us/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/101562/petition-surfaces-restore-copyright-term-28-years-us/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 11:45:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: zanzzz</title>
		<link>http://www.zeropaid.com/news/101562/petition-surfaces-restore-copyright-term-28-years-us/#comment-347019</link>
		<dc:creator>zanzzz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=101562#comment-347019</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The original Copyright Act of 1790 provided for an initial term of 14 years,  renewable once by living authors for an additional 14 years, for works  not yet published.
Although 28 years is a step in the right direction I believe 14 years with a one time renewal of an additional 14 years is a better idea. The renewal would have to be filed within a strict short period and be taxed as well. Those works that the owners neglect to renew the monopoly on would enter the public domain much sooner. If the cost of renewal was substantial the result would be only profit generating works would be renewed. What is the point of locking up books and music for decades if it is not turning a profit?
  The legal justification for copyright (monopoly):
&quot;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&quot;
How many years of monopoly privilege serves to discourage new works rather than promote?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The original Copyright Act of 1790 provided for an initial term of 14 years,  renewable once by living authors for an additional 14 years, for works  not yet published.<br />
Although 28 years is a step in the right direction I believe 14 years with a one time renewal of an additional 14 years is a better idea. The renewal would have to be filed within a strict short period and be taxed as well. Those works that the owners neglect to renew the monopoly on would enter the public domain much sooner. If the cost of renewal was substantial the result would be only profit generating works would be renewed. What is the point of locking up books and music for decades if it is not turning a profit?<br />
  The legal justification for copyright (monopoly):<br />
&#8220;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&#8221;<br />
How many years of monopoly privilege serves to discourage new works rather than promote?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 3/10 queries in 0.002 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 266/272 objects using disk: basic

 Served from: www.zeropaid.com @ 2013-05-24 12:51:44 by W3 Total Cache -->