Lan Barnes wrote:
I think you're on the right track, but these are pretty draconian.
Thoughts interleaved.
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 05:57:44PM -0700, DJA wrote:
3) Copyrights are non-renewable, non-assignable, non-inheritable, and
non-transferable. Copyrights cannot be held as collateral, traded,
sold, bartered, or used as currency.
I write a great novel hoping to put my kids through college. It hits
big, but I keel over. My estate gets bukis (sp?) under your plan. Or I'm
a great writer, but I really need a publisher to push my work. So I need
to be able to sign it over.
Life's funny that way, ain't it.
But I can appreciate that. But your kids didn't write the novel, you
did. Maybe you should have put some of those royalties in a good
investment fund for them. Or encourage them to do something creative
like you did.
This kinda puts you in the same category as a carpenter or mechanic or
code monkey. Anyway, I thought copyright and patent law was to reward
artists and inventors and eventually society, not your heirs.
But maybe we can work something out. Lobby the government or something? ;-)
However, corporations aren't the same as people, even though our courts
pretend otherwise. So my plan would be to start a clock on the copyright
the second the author assigns it (or dies) and the new owner can treat
it like property, but it ends in 15 years. That includes family.
Screw the corporations, I'd rather go back to only the first generation
of your direct heirs can inherit any rights whatsoever, for a limited
time. We'll give 'em 25 years or their lifetime, whichever is shorter.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
