Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
I do.
If I die my wife won't get a penny other than what I have saved in my lifetime (she earns more than I do, and she won't even have my pension).
So, or every other worker gets the same treatment, or Gershwin loses his one.
|
Well, the U.S. legal system really doesn't agree with you. Given that the concept of copyright is enshrined in our Constitution -- and given the difficulty of changing said Constitution -- suggesting paying
all authors like carpenters is just too far away from the realm of possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
If authors were paid for their actual work, like carpenters are, that's not a problem at all.
|
We actually have a system for doing that. It's called "work-for-hire." When that's what happens, the corporation (or person paying for the work) owns the copyright and the potential benefit therefrom; the author gets his or her salary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
The per-copy-sold model is the worst I can imagine.
Using your same analogy: is it fair that a Shakira is paid 1000 times a Ludovico Einaudi? Is "Progress" to have tons of Harry Potter wannabes because they sell much better than a new "ulysses"?
That kind of "financial incentive" promotes trash much more than Art!
Come on! A photo poster of a couple of big tits sells more copies than Bresson's Station!
|
It's pretty easy to argue that Shakira and that poster of a couple of big tits provide more pleasure to more people than do Ludovico Einaudi and Bresson's Station. I certainly don't have a problem with that. And I don't even
like Shakira!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C:
|
I have news for you. There are lots of
carpenters who make more than 100 times the world's average income. Certainly lots of plumbers do!
I suspect that you and I are mutually inpursuasible on this topic.
Xenophon