XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv
From: candid@dontbother.invalid
Thanatos wrote:
> In article ,
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Jim Gysin wrote:
>>> Ian Galbraith sent the following on 10/26/2009 10:21 PM:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:09:41 -0500, Jim Gysin wrote:
>>>>> Anim8rFSK sent the following on 10/26/2009 4:17 PM:
>>>>>> Yeah, I fail to see how society benefits by non creatives being able to
>>>>>> steal other's work.
>>>>> We probably both already know that it has nothing to do with benefiting
>>>>> society and everything to do with benefiting the selfish and
>>>>> self-serving SFTV_troys and Frank Franks of the world.
>>>> I don't see how wanting to set a reasonable time limit on copyright is
>>>> selfish, self serving and stealing.
>>> Shouldn't the creator be the one to decide what is a reasonable time limit?
>> A friend of mine thinks ownership rights should end when you die. I
>> asked him why Stephen King's family should have lost his rights if that
>> idiot in the van had killed him, and if you weren't just inviting people
>> to kill rights holders. He didn't have any good answers.
>
> A good answer would be a copyright term that extends past the life of
> the author by 10 years.
No, a good answer would be a copyright term that extends past the
creation of the work by zero years.
> That's enough time for the heirs to continue to derive some income while
> they get their affairs in order and start making their own living in the
> world.
Why not expect them to make their own living in the world from their
18th birthdays onward? Are you some sort of communist?
> And it would disincentivize murdering artists
So would there not being any copyright at all.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
