On 07/12/09 11:48, Darren New wrote:
>> 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.

	20 years. If he/she dies within that period, he can be allowed to pass 
it on to someone. But not more than 20 years overall.

	I don't think I said only the artist should have it (which is perhaps 
why I started with "not quite the topic at hand"). I'm fine with a 
copyright holder giving away or selling his copyright. But I'd like to 
keep it 20 years overall.

>> 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.

	Yes, my point. From what I can guess what it was about, the current 
system tends to limit the artistic output. It may still be better than 
_no_ copyright, but it's far, far from optimal, and gets worse as time 
goes on.


-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright 
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little 
sign of breaking down in the near future.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message