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?
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?