Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent
If Irving Berlin made some money in 1925, didn't spend it, passed it down to his heir, who didn't spend it, and it kept passing down from heir to heir unspent... at what point should that money be taken away from whatever extended heir now owns it, so it can be given out for free to anyone and everyone?
(Spare us all the political taxation replies, it's a comparative example.)
|
You do realize that our founding fathers never meant copyright to be perpetual. In fact back then it was 14 years. So yes at some point you were expected to let everyone have your shit for free. So using your logic their heirs of Bach should be getting royalty checks and people should have to ask permission to play his music. Shakspere's hiers should get royalty checks even though they guy has been dead nearly 400 years?