Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
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....
|
Ah but I wasn't saying it should be indefinitely prolonged. I was replying to your post about how some claim copyright is to 'the public interest.' If you re-read my post it deals with making sure the actual author has the funds to survive so that he/she can continue to produce works.