Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
One could equally ask "why should it not"? If you build a house, and let it out to tenants, should those tenants stop paying rent when you die? A reasonable person would say "no"; your descendants inherit the house and carry on receiving the rent money.
|
Let's apply this same analogy to science and mathematics. If anyone wants to use calculus, or teach the theory of evolution, or teach relativity, or manufacture ANY modern convience then using your analogy we would have to pay a fee to the decendants of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and the relatives of thousands of other dead scientist. Do you think this might hamper the progess of science and society? Most reasonable people believe that paying individuals who have not created the advancements in science and math is not justifiable. Paying a fee to the relatives of dead artist, who had nothing to do with the creation of the art, is equally unjustifiable.
Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. But if it were, perhaps your analogy of people that have not earned propery, but inherited it, is the morally weaker position. Perhaps society would be stronger if we had to earn our own property through our own merit. Maybe a fairer form of taxation would be a large death tax and little tax during a persons lifetime.