There’s no reason IN THE WORLD for any kind of idea of “intellectual property” to exist once the creator is dead.
NONE.
It doesn’t benefit the creator in any way to have such a system where people can claim ownership of another’s work after death. All that does is deny the living things that could help them in favor of some ridiculous notion that you’re helping the dead; it’s asinine.
Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
This highlights that we are fucked in the head how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn’t be made to struggle becsause of the economics of parents. Neither should adults. Neither should retirees.
Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don’t we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.
Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.
Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience
You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”
Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.
Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.
I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.
But I’m also not into the idea that my creative work could be taken and used in ways I don’t want it to be to undercut me and destroy my ability to subsist off of my labor. I so I think copyright has a place in society.
A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.
People make money off of the public domain all the time. Printing bibles is a booming business and copyright on the text expired ages ago. They do get to claim copyright on all of the stuff surrounding the text, like any illustrations, introductions, covers, etc. Most early Disney movies were based on works in the public domain.
Sure, it would allow instant access to copyrighted works which is neat and all but getting it earlier because the person died earlier is a silly reason based on all artists being hermits who have no families. It also ignores all the copyrights that aren’t owned by individuals, and companies don’t get into car accidents. Why should someone who keeps their copyright be more at risk of their family losing income than a company?
That’s not «the benefits of labour» being passed on to your children, is it? That’s what you own being passed on to your children… And it’s taxed! Maybe it would be a good idea to have taxes on inherited IP, though. Then again, if the taxes are at or above 50% then wouldn’t that mean that the state would inherit control over the IP, hence making it public domain? Meh. That would be an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax, technically, I think. How would you pay taxes on inheriting an IP?
You own copyright the same way you own a piece of paper that says you own a house. Someone who made a lot of money in a short time from their labor can pass on the rest to their children. Copyright spreads out the income over time by allowing exclusive income on ideas for a limited period of time. It is what allows a musician to make money from their songs without needing someone to directly pay them for writing fhe song at the time it was made.
Copyright as a concept is not horrible when applied to exclusive distribution for a short period of time, and that time period shouldn’t arbitrary end on death any more than someone should lose the house their family lives in because the person whose name is ok the deed died in an accident.
It just needs to be far shorter and companies should be changed so that the way people and companies use it. Otherwise every person would create a company, give it the Copyright, and then fhe company could be i herited.
That is the BARE MINIMUM of reason.
There’s no reason IN THE WORLD for any kind of idea of “intellectual property” to exist once the creator is dead.
NONE.
It doesn’t benefit the creator in any way to have such a system where people can claim ownership of another’s work after death. All that does is deny the living things that could help them in favor of some ridiculous notion that you’re helping the dead; it’s asinine.
Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
This highlights that we are fucked in the head how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn’t be made to struggle becsause of the economics of parents. Neither should adults. Neither should retirees.
Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don’t we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.
Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.
Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience
“Nope, the kid is fucked. We need public free access to his father’s work ASAP.”
I’m just being silly and taking the counter view to the extreme
This happens all the time to people who don’t receive royalties. Parents die, kids get nothing. End of.
You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”
If we addressed the core issues of people having what they need to live then copyright would no longer have a reason for existing.
Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.
Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.
Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It’s not justified.
In this example, the child is living, and has needs.
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.
What terrible priorities.
I do think they said a publisher was involved.
But what about when they are not?
If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?
Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.
I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.
But I’m also not into the idea that my creative work could be taken and used in ways I don’t want it to be to undercut me and destroy my ability to subsist off of my labor. I so I think copyright has a place in society.
I think they mean it would become public domain and nobody would make money off of it. Books could be downloaded or used for free without a publisher.
A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.
People make money off of the public domain all the time. Printing bibles is a booming business and copyright on the text expired ages ago. They do get to claim copyright on all of the stuff surrounding the text, like any illustrations, introductions, covers, etc. Most early Disney movies were based on works in the public domain.
Sure, it would allow instant access to copyrighted works which is neat and all but getting it earlier because the person died earlier is a silly reason based on all artists being hermits who have no families. It also ignores all the copyrights that aren’t owned by individuals, and companies don’t get into car accidents. Why should someone who keeps their copyright be more at risk of their family losing income than a company?
Why should the benefits of my labor not pass on to my children just because it’s a creative work?
Because the benefits of labour don’t pass on to your children, period?
Maybe there’s something out there I’m unaware of, but I don’t understand the implication in your question.
Inheritance
That’s not «the benefits of labour» being passed on to your children, is it? That’s what you own being passed on to your children… And it’s taxed! Maybe it would be a good idea to have taxes on inherited IP, though. Then again, if the taxes are at or above 50% then wouldn’t that mean that the state would inherit control over the IP, hence making it public domain? Meh. That would be an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax, technically, I think. How would you pay taxes on inheriting an IP?
You own copyright the same way you own a piece of paper that says you own a house. Someone who made a lot of money in a short time from their labor can pass on the rest to their children. Copyright spreads out the income over time by allowing exclusive income on ideas for a limited period of time. It is what allows a musician to make money from their songs without needing someone to directly pay them for writing fhe song at the time it was made.
Copyright as a concept is not horrible when applied to exclusive distribution for a short period of time, and that time period shouldn’t arbitrary end on death any more than someone should lose the house their family lives in because the person whose name is ok the deed died in an accident.
It just needs to be far shorter and companies should be changed so that the way people and companies use it. Otherwise every person would create a company, give it the Copyright, and then fhe company could be i herited.