Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
Ah but if you write a book and don't have the ability to claim copyright on it during your lifetime how will you ensure that you have enough $$ to live on so that you can write the next one? Mozart is a good example. He ended up in a pauper's grave when he died because he only got paid once for each of his works. He'd write a piece of music for someone and once paid that was the only money he made from that piece. By making sure that the author of a book or short story has certain rights during their lifetime what is best for the public is assured. He/she is able to make enough money to either add to their income or (if lucky enough to be popular) to be able to spend their working lives creating more dreams for others to share in.
|
There is a difference between a certain limited copyright, lets say 50 years flat, and essentially unlimited copyright (he'd have done just fine, really, if he had a 10-year copyright,) and what's best for society would therefore be assured. There would be no benefit to society beyond that, so why should it still be under copyright?
Of course, some people here think Mozart's work should
still be under copyright....