View Single Post
Old 10-06-2012, 10:14 PM   #115
corroonb
Addict
corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.corroonb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
corroonb's Avatar
 
Posts: 302
Karma: 1199319
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ireland
Device: Kobo Touch, Kobo Aura, Nexus 7
The point I was making is that if you argue for copyright on the moral basis of the author deserving a reward for their labour (as HarryT most certainly did among others), then you have no logical reason not to extend that argument to every author or creator who ever lived. Does death remove their right to be rewarded? Not according to current copyright law in most countries in the world. Does the moral right simply end at their death and thereafter there is only the legal right of their descendants to proceeds but not a moral right?

The problem with using such moral arguments as the basis for copyright is that they are not compatible with current copyright law or common sense. Although current copyright law is utter nonsense for the most part. If it ended at death, that would at least make some sense. It should either expire at death or be infinite. Any half-way, arbitrary limit is just the kind of nonsense lawyers love to concoct.
corroonb is offline   Reply With Quote