Quote:
Originally Posted by Billi
If your father is a builder, builds a house, rents it, suddenly dies, you (and the other heirs) will get all the income from the rental.
If your father is a writer, writes a book, sells many copies, suddenly dies, you (and the other heirs) will get all the income from the book. Where is the problem?
One can debate about the 70 years, but in general it is a good regulation that copyright lasts on after the author has died. There are many many injustices in this world, this really is a very minor one.
There is also another thing that makes having copyrights after the author has died a good thing: copyright is not only about making money but also about being able to decide how and where and if at all the work of an artist will be distributed. It includes the publication of such things as diaries, private letters and unpublished works that now can be kept being handled according to the wishes of the artist and not the public.
And it involves the unchangeability of a work.
|
Nowhere did I imply that there shouldn't be a copyright after death. The only thing that is croocked is that the copyright lasts till a certain time after the author's death, instead of after first publication. Diaries, private letters, unpublished works, etc, would never revert to the public domain unless the heirs (and/or author) publish them. So, what's the problem? Except that there'll be less money for the publishers (and indirectly to the heirs...)