Quote:
Originally Posted by shalym
NO...I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that if someone wants to keep control of their work in any way, then yes...why shouldn't they have to pay a very nominal fee to keep control of it. I have to pay a (not nominal) fee to keep control of my property. Nobody is "entitled" to make money off of your work--I'm not saying that in any way, shape, or form. I actually said that if you don't want to publish it, you shouldn't have to, as long as you do *something* to acknowledge that you want to keep it. I would even go so far as to say that as long as the creator is alive, no fee would be needed.
What about authors who die with no heirs? Or heirs that just don't care about their works? In that case, the work would revert back to the public domain. If the heirs wanted to keep control, they would have to pay the fee. Again...this would enable the heirs of classic works to keep control for far longer than they currently can.
I'm not saying that ANYONE but the author (or heirs) should be able to profit from the work...as long as the author (or the heirs) cares enough to keep the work.
Shari
|
How is $20 nominal?
To some people that would mean the difference between eating and starving.
But I guess guarding one's WORK not property is more important.
Please go pay your boss for the privilege of working there.
Obviously you think people should pay to protect what they created.
Did you know when you bought your house that there are fees involved with ownership? You chose to buy not rent.
Did you know there were fees to be able to drive your car?
Those are choices you made. You own and don't use public transportation.
You do not make money off your house, one does make money off their books.
Writing is work. Buying a house is not work.
They are not the same.
Now please tell me what out of print book is so important that someone needs to make sure it is available as an ebook.
Just one example.