Search results

Your still carrying the analogy of physical things too far. Novels and songs aren't "things"; you can't own them. You can only have copyright over them—the right to be the exclusive distributor of them. Why should you be able to keep selling the same song over and over but I can't do that...

Lifetime is ridiculous. The generation that helped shape the creation should be able to take ownership of it while it is still relevant to that society. Yes, The Hobbit would have been public domain. So...? How would that at all have affected the publication of LotR? All it means is that...

If I make a chair, it exists. One chair. That I, and only I, can possess and control. If I make a song, I can distribute a billion copies of it. Why should I have perpetual right over what someone can do with the copy they bought? Copyright is an OK thing, so long as it is limited. Seven...

If you make a chair, you sell it. Done. If you write a song, why should you be able to be the exclusive seller of it for all eternity? Bank balances are not "things made" so that's a false equivalence fallacy.

Where it becomes problematic is when it lasts longer than 7 years. Period. The Constitution provides exclusive rights to works of art and creativity for a "limited time". Since nobody creates in a vacuum, society is a co-creator so the generation that inspired the creation should also have...

Copyright ≠ belongings => false equivalence fallacy.

Thus we see the massive negative effects of perpetual ownership of copyright. Gary died. His work is done and over and belongs in the public domain. If his wife or kids want to make money, they can do so on their own work and efforts.