I'm not talking about themes, I'm talking about creative works -- there's a substantive difference. It's well established that nobody can own an idea -- but you _can_ own a specific organization of ideas. I can write a completely original story about star-crossed lovers, and that's not the same as re-creating "Romeo and Juliet." (When you understand this idea, it becomes clear why software copyrights are good, but software patents are idiotic, asinine and destructive.)
I have absolutely no qualms with Mozart's decendants owning his works. We allow everything else to be passed on -- including other things that don't exist as physical objects, like business entities -- or money (which no longer exists outside of a widely agreed-upon concept). I don't see why anybody, other than you, should have the right to decide what happens to your creations. If you choose to pass ownership of your creation on to your children, why is it right for anybody else to say you shouldn't be able to do that? The whole concept of entitlement just rubs me the wrong way. And I don't buy the "societal benefit" argument. Having somebody else own a copyright on "The Grapes of Wrath" hasn't prevented me or anybody else from benefitting from it. Even if I couldn't afford to buy it, we have wonderfull library systems that allow me to enjoy its delicious, creamy literary goodness. But, more importantly, it _IS_ priced so that I can afford it -- it's in the copyright owner's best interests to make it affordable to me. If they price it out of the consumer's ability to buy, they sell no copies, make no money, and the whole incentive for publishing is destroyed. A creative work doesn't have, need or want to be owned -- it IS owned by it's creator, the instant he or she creates it. By right of ownership, the creator should be able to decide what happens to a creation -- including passing it to heirs, or the public, or whomever they chose. I don't adhere to the school of thought that says governments or societies should forcefully take property from their citizens. Dave >>> Ross Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/24/04 10:30 AM >>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, District Webmaster wrote: > Just because Mozart could transcribe a symphony after hearing it doesn't > mean he did it, then went on to perfrom the work without the author's > permission. Actually, I remember hearing a story along the same lines, where some composer had a top-secret symphony that he would only play at certain times/places, and Mozart somehow got a ticket and copied the whole symphony and, thereafter, played it without the original author's permission. (And, actually, copying of whole themes and ideas was rampant throughout classical music ... should Mozart's descendants have received royalties every time someone plays a Variation on his Theme? After all, if he _created_ the theme, to take his _creation_ (which /somebody/ has to own, right?) without permission would be morally and ethically wrong, isn't that the argument?) ~ross -- This sentence would be seven words long if it were six words shorter. ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
