Quote:
Originally Posted by Moejoe
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to leave something behind to your children, that would be cruel and pointless in my eyes. What I'm suggesting is that copyright shouldn't be that 'something' and if it is, then it shouldn't last so long. This work (barring the editing and work that his son has done, all of which is laudable and should be rewarded) should have entered the Public Domain to enrich culture a long time ago. Personal inheritence like a house or money cannot enrich the culture we live in (unless the house is of some cultural significance).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
It's not about denying one's children their inheritance. Letting something pass into the public domain does not involve going into the bank accounts of the author's estate and removing money from them.
It does prevent creative works from becoming a perpetual source of income for large corporations that profit on the monopoly. It's just like patent expiration: even when the generic drug becomes available you can still get the authorized version.
The public domain allows for the cross-fertilization of existing works and springboards new creative ideas.
|
OK guys - thanks, I do see the distinction now between inheritance of money/property and the passing on of copyright.
I guess it gets a bit hazy if a copyright is all you have to pass on and you would appear to be drawing a line between an individual's son or daughter holding the copyright as opposed to selling that on to MegaPublishing Corporation (or similar)?