3 ms·
Well now you are talking about lobbying which is a different subject that also isn't as black and white as you are painting it. I don't know what guaranteed pr
by pfisch 11y ago
Well now you are talking about lobbying which is a different subject that also isn't as black and white as you are painting it.
I don't know what guaranteed profit you are talking about. Most IPs do not produce any profit even 2-5 years after they are created. Mario for example has required millions if not billions of dollars of follow on investments from Nintendo so that the ip is still valuable. Most other NES games do not continue to generate profit.
"....the rest of us don't get for our work" - I don't even understand what you mean by this. Are you talking about the employment contract you strike with an employer? Because that contract varies and some employees do see profits for decades on previous works. I think you need to provide an example here.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoNo, we're talking about copyright and the money it brings. That's the primary reason for its existence that I can tell. Copyrighted works are a multi-billion dollar industry. They're also extremely, one-sided laws thanks to lobbying by big companies that own most of the I.P. (esp profitable). So, when conversation comes up, it makes no sense to act like it's Joe Public vs The Little Guy given that the laws are mainly designed to benefit The Big Companies. So, the question is, should my work and company have to keep innovating to earn at or above the market rate while a select few get 100+ year monopolies on their work? I think not. Further, your employment contract reply is a strawman that doesn't reflect America's situation. People are typically hired by a company with either no contract or a contract written by the company for the company's benefit. Laws, passed again with corruption, often grant the company the I.P. if the slightest bit was done on their time. Other laws let the companies throw away employees without consequence. The result is that the labor market is rigged highly in favor of big companies and their lawyers with supply-and-demand lowering the wages of workers each year. Except big companies with a nice selection of copyrights, patents, and other legal monopolies. ;) So, it's worthwhile to ask whether we should continue giving monopolies that mainly benefit richest few and were largely created via corruption. I'm opposed to it as I think artists will create regardless. I'm for models more like Patreon or non-profits behind software.