3 ms·
> They get very few new projects produced and rely on residuals to provide income in between new projects Let's take 'decades' at its minimum value - 20 years.
by imron 10y ago
> They get very few new projects produced and rely on residuals to provide income in between new projects
Let's take 'decades' at its minimum value - 20 years. That's plenty of time to get another project and if it's not, then it's more likely lack of talent than lack of wealth that's keeping that person out of the industry.
I agree with the GP. You shouldn't be able to rest on your laurels for decades from a single piece of work.
- smhenderson 10y agoThanks, as I've mentioned elsewhere me saying "decades" was probably a bit vague, and yes, you're literal interpretation is in line with what I was thinking.
- paulcole 10y ago> You shouldn't be able to rest on your laurels for decades from a single piece of work. Why not? If people still like the work and are willing to pay for it? People retire after cashing out stock from a startup. Are you against this as well?
- imron 10y agoIn the context of copyright, which my reply was about, it's about striking a balance between rewarding creators and progressing the arts. In my opinion, extended copyrights like what we have now tilt the balance too far in favour of rewarding the creator, at the expense of progressing the arts. 20-30 years is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to profit exclusively from the distribution of a work. Which is not to say you can no longer profit from it afterwards, just that opening it up to the public greatly increases the potential of progressing the arts. Not to mention, it adds incentive for creators to keep creating even after making successful art.