Quote:
Originally Posted by khalleron
And yet courts overturn wills all the time, not always because the heirs are greedy, as seems to be the opinion here, but because often the person making the will is an ass. Ass-ery is not unique to heirs.
What's the greater good here? I think that's the real question. Steve's a professional writer, he seems to think that absolute control beyond the grave is his greater good.
How would burning Kafka's works have benefited anyone? It may have been his wish, but it couldn't have been to his benefit, because he's dead.
I'm all for respecting the wishes of the departed as long as those wishes don't harm the living, but I see the loss of art as a very great harm.
|
We overturn wills because the form was wrong. Or because the person writing it was not mentally capable or was unreasonably coerced. Or because they left everything to Fluffy the cat, which the law doesn't allow. Those are actually some of the only reasons.
Its not your art to lose. Its not anyone's art until that author is willing to expose it. I'm an attorney, and I can't really think outside of that schema anymore. I see rights that the author has to choose to divest how he wishes. I don't see this view that some are taking that as soon as pen has gone to paper that its art for all to consume even if the author did not wish it. Its a self-centered point of view to my mind. I am still waiting for someone here to convince me otherwise.