Re: droit de suite

On 04/11/2000, Jeroen Hellingman <jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
>
> [...]
> copyright is a means to secure that creators of works can have
> income, but should it do so for their distant relatives in a far
> away future. I don't think so.

Harold Bloom is the author of many books. He's mentioned in interviews that he has a disabled son who will never be capable of living independently. Like all parents in that position, he's concerned about ensuring care for his son when he himself is no longer living. What I'm sensing in your ingenious but self-serving arguments, Jeroen, is a lack of any respect for artists as human beings who have needs as do other human beings. Sure, you're veiling it by pretending your contempt is only for hypothetical "distant relatives." But you've not explained why the "distant relatives" of artists and writers should be regarded as any more despicable than the distant relatives of anyone else.

Fifty or seventy years is not as unreasonable as it seems, especially if the intent was to allow the creative person to provide for reasonably foreseeable immediate needs. It would allow for, say, the education of an orphaned grandchild, which is not an unreasonable thing for anyone to want. The point is, Jeroen, you keep insisting that royalties bequeathed by writers would fall into unworthy hands, or unworthy according to you. Yet you've not explained what makes your own needs so important, and I certainly feel sceptical of any claim that you're speaking for "the public" or any constitutency besides yourself. If I have a house I choose to leave to a distant relative, or to a person who's not even a relative at all, what business is it of yours? What makes you a more worthy recipient, in your opinion?

pat sloane
<patsloane[_at_]aol.com> Received on Tue Apr 11 2000 - 19:12:27 GMT