Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
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.
|
They have income a certain number of years. How did that income not become an asset that can be handed on?
What seems WRONG to me is that the advantage of handing down assets as you want to do is so small compared to the advantage of having the books free to use for everybody.