Here's a new picture for you, pal: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1972361ericblick said:Interesting digression into copyright, patent and inheritance.
I vote for passing on the rights at creator's death. If this means that the incentive to create goes away as the grim reaper approaches, well, I would suggest that the creation is merely a $ making act and not worth the effort.
The family is subject to the vagaries of fate, as we all are. If the holder of the copyright/ patent is able to provide for them with the income collected while they are alive, great. Otherwise, it's off to work we go...
I admit that I am a bit radical when it comes to inheritance. The picture of families that have a zillion dollars and all of the power and influence that represents when they have NONE of the interest or talent that their benefactor possessed is terrible social policy, imo. (See W)
In case the link doesn't work, allow me to summarize: On Tuesday, Mattie Stepanek died at the age of 13 from a rare form of muscular dystrophy. This disease had already taken the lives of his three older siblings and his mother continues to suffer from its effects. Mattie was a talented young poet, having already published four books of poems and he touched many people by facing his disease with strength and courage.
According to your viewpoint, his family should now lose the revenue from the sale of these books? Revenue that they are likely using to pay for part of Mattie's and his mother's considerable medical bills? Oh, that's right, you say they're "subject to the vagaries of fate, as we all are". I'd say this family has suffered enough from the "vagaries of fate".
Just wanted to remind you while you're shooting your mouth off about "families that have a zillion dollars" that the rest of us live in the real world. Lots of shades of gray here. Come down from your ivory tower sometime and try it.