Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/12/09 11:13, Darren New wrote:
>> professional artists out of work. You'd also have artists unable to
>> leave an inheritance of art to their children.
> 
>     Not quite the topic at hand, but if the artists make money on their 
> work, the children will get that inheritance.

And if the artist doesn't sell it before he dies, the kids get nothing. Not 
that that is necessarily *bad*, but saying "only the artist can have the 
copyright" has consequences you might not have thought about.

>     The more I think about it, the more I feel that excessive copyright 
> is worse for society. What's excessive? Say over 20 years. 

I think that's about what it was to start with. I agree it's far too long 
these days.

> +++ Of course, you do have borderline cases where some piece of work may 
> only begin to show a profit around the time the copyright expires. Small 
> changes to my scheme will fix that...

I thought something a bit more complex might work. Ten years after the 
original author stops offering it for sale for a "reasonable" price, or 25 
years after being authored in the first place, or 15 years after copyright 
is assigned to a commercial entity, or ....

Something like that. Let individual authors profit as long as they like as 
long as it's offered for a reasonable price, perhaps.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message