Re:In 'Sherlock Holmes' Rights Dispute, Conan Doyle Estate S...
by baddox on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @03:00AM
(#8141375)
If a person with a shorter life expectancy values a lifelong copyright less than a person with a longer life expectancy, presumably that means the people value being able to pass their copyright onto kin or other beneficiaries (like charity) after their death. But what about people with no kin or beneficiaries, or people who don't want to pass on their earthly possessions after they die? They will also be discriminated against, by this logic.
Re:In 'Sherlock Holmes' Rights Dispute, Conan Doyle Estate S...
by fineline on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @03:21AM
(#8141416)
To decline an opportunity (choosing to bequeath to nobody) is not the same as to be denied that same opportunity. The latter could be discrimination, the former case could not, as who would be the discriminator?
Re:In 'Sherlock Holmes' Rights Dispute, Conan Doyle Estate S...
by baddox on Wednesday August 06, 2014 @01:34PM
(#8143689)
If any denial of opportunity counts as discrimination, then why discriminate against everyone who didn't write the book by prohibiting them from making copies? Copyright is inherently discriminatory, and any specific implementation of a copyright system will discriminate in certain ways against certain people.
As for the price of creative works, a common fear is that if copyright protection was weaker, artists might no longer feel properly incentivized to make creative works, and an uncreated work is not isn't available at any price. I have trouble sharing this fear, although the impact would probably depend on your taste in art.
[1] A slight poetic license, as statistically American black females have slightly greater life expectancy at every age than do American white males: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_07.pdf