Quote:
Originally Posted by barryem
When a carpenter builds a house he sells the house and no longer has any claim to it. When an artist paints a picture and sells it he loses any claim to it. Why isn't something comparable also fair for authors?
In the USA the original copyright period was 14 years, renewable once. Even that seems ridiculously long to me. If a writer writes a book it seems more than fair to give him 5 or 10 years to recoup the time he spent on it. The point of copyright is to give the author a chance to make money. Five years would give most authors 99.99% of what they'll ever get for most books. If a book is exceptional then he probably already made a bunch from it.
I'm only talking about books. Movies may or may not have different issues. I enjoy movies but I don't care enough about them to have thought about their issues.
Barry
|
I assume you no longer draw a salary or wage for your job. It was fair that you do so for five or ten years. If you are any good at it, you probably already made a bundle. Just because you labour still has value to people doesn't mean you should be paid for it.
My friend recently published a novel that she's been working on the since before I met her (8 years). It's published with a small house. The subject matter is rather bleak, so it's not going to sell millions, but it probably has some life and will sell okay for years. Get your hands off her money.
Another friend has a great novel in the works. He's been at it for 10+ years. Given it's nature and quality, I have no doubt it will be a Canadian bestseller, but he's not going to make millions off it. He's entitle to enjoy the results of his effort.