View Single Post
Old 07-10-2008, 08:44 AM   #20
zelda_pinwheel
zeldinha zippy zeldissima
zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.zelda_pinwheel ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
zelda_pinwheel's Avatar
 
Posts: 27,827
Karma: 921169
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Paris, France
Device: eb1150 & is that a nook in her pocket, or she just happy to see you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
That may have been the intent 200 years ago when authors were "gentlemen" who didn't have to work for a living. Clearly, times have changed, and today virtually all authors write to make money, and income from their books is their only "asset". To say that those assets cannot be handed on to their dependents seems WRONG to me.
when exactly was writing reserved for wealthy gentlemen who had no need to work ?? there have always been plenty of poor authors, just like there have always been plenty of starving artists. it's never been a good professional choice if your end goal is to get rich. copyright really can't change that, and wasn't meant to, and shouldn't try.

and yes, the authors should be free to pass on *whatever money they earned while alive* to their spouses or children or local dog shelter. but copyright should not outlast them by 70 years. that's not the same at all.
zelda_pinwheel is offline   Reply With Quote