"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a5a1fab@news.povray.org...
> somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > licensing it? I would suggest that copyright should be perpetual, rather
> > than an arbitrary number of years.

>   That would not benefit the society as a whole.
>
> [...]
>
>   Also in the long run you end up in a situation where *everything* is
> copyrighted, and nothing new can be done anymore before breaking the law.

I don't disregard your concerns, but similar objections could be raised for
inheritance of private property. That one can inherit property or land or
goods means we end up in a situation where *everything* is owned, but that
doesn't stiffle economic growth. We can certainly flourish as a society
where Smoke on Water is copyrighted. Why would it then be any more
disasterous if Marriage of Figaro were currently copyrighted as well? I
would think that the cost to society would be minimal, if any, on the whole.
It would, if anything, encourage more original or contemporary works. On a
practical matter, licence fees for older works would naturally decline in
time anyway, and many would voluntarily be donated to public domain. As for
art whose creator passes away without proper will, it can be handled the
same way as his material propeties, depending on the local legislature,
including rights being released to public domain or to museums... etc.

Post a reply to this message