Richard Clark wrote:

If any want to argue that this is far different from Mickey Mouse
protection, I would offer that even if his copyright expired, there
would still be protection through Trade Mark, and Licensing
agreements.

Why would anyone pay to license something for which the copyright has
expired?

Really, the laws are manifestly and explicitly for
intimidation alone.

No. They are also meant to encourage R&D, advance the state of the art,
and promote entepreneurism.

You can be sued for distributing the image of Moe Howard, but sky
through with Abraham Lincoln's mug on a T-shirt.

That's where the similarity ends. But where does it begin?

This is not about
creativity, merit, or intellectual worth. It is simply about
government sanctioned monopoly (and again, manifestly and explicitly
so). As TR observed 100 years ago, expanded monopolies are bad for
America.

The Truthspeak word for pessimist is realist.

ac6xg