|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |