On 04.12.2006 Andrew Stiller wrote:
By the same reasoning, I would argue that there should be a cap (say $1M) on the amount a work may earn for its creator under copyright. Anything above that, and the item goes PD. I would also argue that no copyright should be ownable by an institution, but only by one or more specific, named human beings. Many of the abuses being complained of here would go away were this latter suggestion to be enacted.
The much a socialist I may be, I honestly cannot follow any of this. Why should other people profit from my piece of art, only because I already made a million with it? If I decide I am not going to sell it anymore after I earned a million or two, why should anyone stop me? To repeat someone else's words: It _is_ mine, mine, and only mine.
BTW, the German equivalent of copyright is "Urheberrecht", and the word itself does suggest a different meaning. Personally I find that much more adequate.
If you paint a picture and put it up in your living room, would you want anyone to come along and say, sorry, this is now public property, thank you for keeping it in a good condition, you can now view it in the public museum. That's ridiculous.
If you write a novel, and it sells well, would you want Hollywood to make a big blockbuster movie out of it, make a fortune, and not give you a penny, just because the book sold well? Sorry, you already had your million, now we make billions with your work.
Just for the record: Music history would have been quite different without Urheberrecht. I am pretty sure we would not have seen some of the greatest masterworks without it. I am pretty sure 90% of classical and romantic string quartets would not have been written.
Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
