Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
If copyright protection ended at death, there'd be no financial incentive for anyone on his deathbed to write or compose or publish scientific results. Since the purpose of copyright law is to promote progress, the ability to compensate heirs in the absence of the author is included.
|
I never really got this.. How many of the people who are "on their death bed", yet are still able to compose/write/blabla, don't just do it because they want to be remembered by whatever it is they're trying to finish? If they're really that driven, I don't really think that a financial incentive matters all that much.
As an example of this mindset, look at J.S. Bach, for instance, who wrote most of his most influential work after he was no longer required to write 1-mass-a-day stuff, knowing that it wouldn't be appreciated by his contemporaries (such as his sons).
OTOH, I could care less about a "deathbed work" by Stephen King/Grisham/etc. as they likely won't add anything insightful to our cultural whole anyway if they hadn't before. Reading works by geriatrics with overly inflated egos is usually more painful than interesting.