Interesting. Assuming you don't have joint-ownership with a spouse (which would automatically go to the surviving spouse, I assume) to whom would ownership of our property pass at our death?
Dave >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/08/03 12:21 PM >>> If you think about it why should we even be able to pass our physical property on to our heirs? We've lived with that idea all our lives, but it is not an immutable truth. Why do I have the right to decide what happens to my stuff when I'm dead and it's no longer my stuff? There's no good reason except for that's how our culture does it. Society has decided that that's what we'll do. District Webmaster wrote: >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/07/03 1:21 PM >>> >>>> >>>> >>. . . resists the urge to post unecessary inflammatory material . . . >> >> > >lol. > >Despite our collectively demonstrated inability to resist impassioned >debates -- and despite the fact that many of us have agreed, >voluntarily, >to cool our heels a bit today, I'd like to post a question to the >group. I'm not trying to prove a point; I'm not trying to bait anyone. >I was discussing this topic with a friend of mine today and he posed the >question to me -- it caused me to reconsider my position that >copyright should end with a creator's life, largely because I >couldn't think of an answer to it. > >His question was: what difference is there between a creator's right >to chis own work, and other property rights? The implied question, >of course, is what difference is there between a book I write and sell, >and a doll house I make for my daughter? If someone has the right to >take >control of my creative work from me, should they then be able to take >my daughter's doll house? > >If there is no difference in my property rights, regardless of >the type of property, then I'm forced to reconsider my position that >copyrights shouldn't be inheritable. If I can pass my hard-earned >money, home, etc. on to my decendants at death, why not control of my >creative works? > >I honestly couldn't see a difference -- but that doesn't mean >one doesn't exist. I'm genuinely interested in the group's thoughts >on the issue. > >The implied question here is, can the group engage in a discussion with >differing ideas without decending into pettiness? :) Additionally, I >think this might actually be a good argument for forums -- while most >of us do not prefer them, and they're not suited to many discussions, >they might well be suited to long-running and oft-debated >topics that some of the group wish to pursue, but of which others >of the group have grown weary. > >Your thoughts? > >Dave > > >____________________ >BYU Unix Users Group >http://uug.byu.edu/ >___________________________________________________________________ >List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > > > ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
