Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
There is no paradox in it.
An author makes money during his life just like any other worker do.
His heirs have the right to keep that money (if the author didn't spend all of it), just like every other heir in the western world.
So, they will have the author's money.
In the situation of a comatose kept alive by machines: when those are turned off, the heirs lose the author's disability pension and the old-age one, if any.
In the same way they have to lose the Intellectual property rights. Their intellect has nothing to do with the dead author's work.
In my dreams, the copyright ends at the very moment a doctor signs a death certificate.
|
But why is it any more sensefull of the heirs getting money, while the ancestor is near-dead?
What about someone murdering an author because he wants his works to "be free" (and gets away with it, i.e. it cannot be determined who the murder was). Now suppose she is mother of a 6-year old. Then suddendly this kid will not only lose her mother, but also any financial backing she would have had, of the work her mother had already done, if only she would not have died?
Its so paradox, don't you see it?