Quote:
Originally Posted by moz
One reason for taking: the owner is dead. I mean that in all seriousness. It does not matter how much we reward Arthur Clarke for his books, he will never, ever write another. No amount of money will change his mind. So, what possible justification is there in terms of "encouraging creative output"? Sure, there's the "my ideas are my property and I take them to my grave" response, but I don't think even the mammon-worshippers are demanding that extreme. Even in the USA, dead people cannot own property, so if you argue that copyright is property, why should it persist after death? No other ideas are given legal force after death...
|
If you ran a company, you would be allowed to pass the ownership of that company - and the income from it - on to your heirs. Writing a book is just as much work as starting a company. Why should you not be allowed to pass the income from a book on to your heirs?