perpetual copyright?

Was: Re: droit de suite

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> When people create wealth, it's not a bad idea to allow them to
> bequeath that wealth to their heirs... whether the wealth consists
> of a company that was established, paintings bequethed to heirs by
> an artist, or royalty producing properties of any kind. Why is it
> OK to bequeath an oil-well (which produces royalties) but not the
> rights to a book manuscript (which produces royalties)?
>
> Actually, the price of books is rather low, and nobody is seriously
> arguing that we need to eliminate copyright to spare the public any
> harm done or hardships suffered by the price of books being "too high."
> Royalties paid to a writer are rarely more than 5% or 10% of the cost
> of a book, a mere piffle no more burdensome to the book-buyer than
> sales taxes. Also, nobody seriously argues that there's any public
> benefit to be gained by eliminating copyright -- that, say, if we
> could get the price of books down by 10%, then people might do more
> reading.
>
> So what drives the raging against copyright, if it isn't any kind
> of desire for the public good? Seems to me it's the larcenous lust.
> Eliminate copyright and you deprive the writer of the opportunity to
> profit from his work. But you've correspondingly opened the door for
> anyone other than the writer to profit from the writer's work. The
> T. S. Eliot estate makes a million dollars a year from the literary
> properties he left. Knock out copyright, and that million dollars
> is up for grabs. Anyone, even you, could print and sell his books
> without paying royalties and get a piece of the action. What I'm not
> understanding is why you regard it as obnoxious if the money goes to
> the writer or his heirs, and preferable that it go to anyone other
> than the writer or his heirs.

So I gather you believe that copyright terms should be in perpetuity?

Jon Noring
Yomu
<noring[_at_]netcom.com> Received on Wed Apr 05 2000 - 02:23:17 GMT