XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv   
   From: candid@dontbother.invalid   
      
   Invid Fan wrote:   
   > In article , steve march    
   > wrote:   
   >> "Invid Fan"  wrote in message   
   >> news:281020090003352713%invid@loclanet.com...   
   >>> In article , steve march    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>> "Anim8rFSK"  wrote in message   
   >>>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-116713.19235027102009@news.dc1.easynews.com...   
   >>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>> Jim Gysin  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>> I would assume the same thing that prevents beneficiaries of every life   
   >>>> insurance policies from whacking those policyholders. Yet we still have   
   >>>> life   
   >>>> insurance.   
   >>>   
   >>> So if King were murdered his family would get to keep his rights, where   
   >>> as if he died a natural death they wouldn't. Hmm....   
   >> I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my statement.   
   >   
   > You compared copyright ownership to life insurance (at least   
   > hypothetically). What's to keep someone from killing Steven King so   
   > people can write new Dark Tower novels?   
      
   I'd be more worried that with the existing system, copyright passing to   
   the heirs, they'd be motivated to kill him so they can start cashing   
   those huge royalty cheques.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)