I realise that it is trendy to be cynical of anyone who has gained any form of celebrity, but I think that it is also appropriate to remind people that the person behind the spotlight is as human as anyone else that you meet. Just like us, the make mistakes. Just like us, sometimes they are regretful because they were caught. And just like us, sometimes the regret that they express is sincere.
This idea is laughable for 95% of the people with celebrity status (this guy might be in the other 5%, I don't honestly know.) When they're on their high horse they expect to be treated as better than everyone else, but when they make mistakes we're reminded how 'they are human too and make mistakes'. Bullshit. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to live your life on a high horse be my guest. Just don't come looking for sympathy when you fall off.
Europe is batshit insane anyway with "artists".
Hey! Leave Björk out of this!
Swamp land. The power plant was build in the midst of swamps.
So that's why all those people on Swamp People are missing so many teeth! It's the radiation!
1. The creator of a copyrightable work is granted sole reproduction rights to their work indefinitely.
2. The creator may only hold copyright to one of each class of copyrightable work at a given time (book, musical album, movie, etc). Previous copyrighted works are surrendered into the public domain upon the publishing of a new work that is itself not released directly into the public domain.
3. All copyrights expire five(5) years after the creator's death.
This system allows a creator to collect money from a work for as long as it remains profitable to do so. However, being able to possess only one copyright at any given time removes the incentive to create and then retire for life. With unlimited (in number) copyrights, a creator could create several works and collect a massive amount of cash. Limiting it to one at a time ensures that as soon the popularity for that work declines below an acceptable threshold, the creator would need to create a new work in order to maintain a certain level of income. If the creator happens to create something so profound that it remains highly profitable for many years they should be allowed to kick back and reap the rewards; if it is really that valuable to society it only seems fair. Clause three just helps ensure that copyrighted works are innevitably released into the public domain, after a time period sufficient for contributing to the creator's estate. I.E. The creator could will his copyright to an heir allowing the heir to collect on it for five years, which would be held separate from the heir's own copyright count (if they indeed hold any at all.) Considering you'd actually have to die to pass that copyright to someone else, it would be very costly to abuse (especially considering you could get more than five years out of it if you simply stayed alive.)
The current system, as you say, is attrocious/an attrocity. It is robbing society of works originally promised to them simply by exptending copyright, and allowing 'ageless' corporations to hold copyrights, rather than people. The system is broken, and I feel mine is about as simple and as fair as one could conceive. I welcome anyone to poke holes in it however, I enjoy (constructive) criticism.