Copyright is not about 'if it makes money for the rights holder, it should be allowed'. It's about the freedom of the holder to decide what they think is the 'best', be it in monetary form, or artistic integrity, or whatever.
I disagree. Copyrights (and patents for that matter) are a temporary monopoly we grant to a creator to give the incentive for people to create new things.
We believe that the cost of taking away the rights of other people to reproduce those ideas for a limited time is worth the benefit of the new works that are being created as a result.
Should I have the right to prohibit translations? I think so.
I think not. Especially 30 years after your death. When does it end? If Shakespeare had left a note asking that his work never be translated into other languages, and never performed outside of England, should we continue to honor that today?
We do not have an inherent right to the ideas we express and the words we pen such that we can always control what other people will do with them. We've merely decided as a society to temporarily create such a right because the tradeoff is worth it.
I disagree. Copyrights (and patents for that matter) are a temporary monopoly we grant to a creator to give the incentive for people to create new things.
We believe that the cost of taking away the rights of other people to reproduce those ideas for a limited time is worth the benefit of the new works that are being created as a result.
Should I have the right to prohibit translations? I think so.
I think not. Especially 30 years after your death. When does it end? If Shakespeare had left a note asking that his work never be translated into other languages, and never performed outside of England, should we continue to honor that today?
We do not have an inherent right to the ideas we express and the words we pen such that we can always control what other people will do with them. We've merely decided as a society to temporarily create such a right because the tradeoff is worth it.