Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros
Again, I do understand the "point" of copyright. But I think the value of what the writer creates should be something that he can pass down to his heirs. I don't understand why something of value, created by the writer can't benefit his children and their children.
I understand the limitations of copyright, I just don't agree with that limitation. I realize it's probably not a very popular opinion here. But it is what it is.
|
The problem with perpetual copyright is that it's a one-sided arrangement. The author and their heirs get their copyrights forever. The government gets the cost of enforcing the copyrights forever. What does the government and the people they represent get back in return? You seem to be fixated on the authors' side of the arrangement, and give no thought to the other side.
In a way, I kind of hate having this pointless debate. The authors and culture have nothing to do with current and future copyright terms. They are determined by corporations (and those that control them) and those in government who have their pockets lined to push them through. It's only about the money.