Quote:
Originally Posted by axel77
Well the point is the parentes *did* already do a job that would have brough X dollars into the family. When it was a construction worker, he/she would already have been paid for their work. When it is an author, they well get decreased revenues for the same work, just because they died early on, in this death clause?
|
Mommy got paid for the job with an advance. Mommy has been being paid for that same work for years. And nobody, not even Nostradamus, can say "that book will earn me X dollars".
The poor orphan child will get all the royalties of the sales occurred while mom was alive (and, please, don't ask "what if mum died the very same day of the book publishing?": you can't deny education to millions of real poor klids to make a non-existent writer's child a billionaire. The poor unlucky child who loses both the parents, the four grand-parents and every other relative the same day he will go to an orphanage, like every one in the same situation)
Look at the balance: at one side we have billions of poor children who may have an education, books for free, music for free or near-free and so on with a death or a death+1 copyright.
On the another side we have one single six years old orphan, and a couple of kids with a writer daddy in a coma or brain dead who won't be richer than they are now.
Whose side are you on?