Quote:
Originally Posted by Raphi'Elohim
This may seem weird and outre but I am going to make the biological argument for sake of diversity of arguments here and maybe make the discussion not so repetitive.
Ok, so let us take John Paul Sartre's books on philosophy or maybe Albert Camus' books. They are not available on project Gutenberg but Arthur Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein are. Why ? Probably because of what Pwalker8 mentioned.
John Paul Sartre's book "No Exit" was published in 1944. Let us say his relatives own the intellectual property to the book and are making money off it.
A person shares 3.13%, on average, genetically or DNA-wise with their second cousins. So the relatives profiting off the book currently would be like strangers or almost strangers genetically to Sartre so it makes no logical sense scientifically as we share like 99% of our DNA with bonobo chimps or monkeys.
Also, maybe relatives are not profiting but actual complete strangers in a publishing house/company.
I might also add I read all of Schopenhauer's works available on Gutenberg and I noticed that last one I read only had 144 downloads. Do you really think "No Exit" would have a ton of downloads ?
So no one would be making a lot of money off it, anyway.
It seems to me people might be making a mountain out of a molehill here or maybe I am just doing a weird analysis that is also limited myopically in scope.
|
Everyone doesn’t have the same number of kids. Everyone doesn’t divide their assets up equally. Consider land....it’s not like, you end up with a 1 inch piece of property.
More then likely, the most lucrative copyrights will be sold to a publisher. Somebody would own the Shakespeare copyrights....where 99% of the contemporary works would have fallen into the public domain from neglect.
The only people affected are those wanting to publish or copy actual Macbeth. They would have to pay for the rights. Everyone else just goes to see the play or the movie like they do already.