m ike wrote:
Otherwise, Shakespeare (and other valuable works) would be owned by the
individual (or in todays context, corporations) forever, and noone would
be able to use them without paying the copyright owner a fee
Honestly, I do not see what is wrong with that. In these terms, a
leveled economic playing field would benefit young writers. Sounds
good to me.
But young writers don't maintain their copyright
They often sell it to someone else to get the cash now and hope the
piece of art is good enough that someone will come back to them with a
request to do another, in which case they are in a better position to
negotiate better terms for themselves this time, including maintaining
ownership of the work.
This is how the music industry works, the musicians get screwed until
they're the Metallica's of the world
My brother, a filmmaker, often uses the example of the guy who wrote The
Truman Show (Jim Carrey) and sold it to the studio's, but in his terms,
he wanted a guarantee that he would be financed to make his pet project,
Gattacca. Personally, I think Gattacca is the better film :) But he did
have to give up his rights to one of his pieces of work to retain some
sort of control over another (he still sold Gattacca to the studios, but
he got control of the project)
--
Michael O'Keefe | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Live on and Ride a 03 BMW F650GSDakar| [EMAIL PROTECTED] / |
I like less more or less less than |Work:+1 858 845 3514 / |
more. UNIX-live it,love it,fork() it |Fax :+1 858 845 2652 /_p_|
My views are MINE ALONE, blah, blah, |Home:+1 760 788 1296 \`O'|
blah, yackety yack - don't come back |Fax :+1 858 _/_\|_,
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
