3 ms·

I'm part of the "strip back protections" to a more reasonable frame of reference. His argument, to wit, is bullshit (if I'm reading correctly). Reasonable Copyr

I'm part of the "strip back protections" to a more reasonable frame of reference. His argument, to wit, is bullshit (if I'm reading correctly). Reasonable Copyright Reform is basically "Life of Artist + X years" where X is the variable. A single digit extension, say like 5 years, so family members can enjoy a last bit of revenue stream / protection of works, and then it goes back to the public benefit. Nobody other than Copyright Abolitionists assert that Copyright should expire while the creator is still alive - I mean, I guess somebody could assert it but it's so far out as a non-sequitur it's laughable. If I misread his argument or your summary then I still think there are significant problems with that line of reasoning in a serious Copyright Reform discussion.

smhenderson 10y ago
Bullshit? OK, thanks for explaining why you think my argument is bullshit, even if I think that language is unnecessary. But I do disagree. If I write a hit song and die before the copyright ends than sure, let my family have a cut. But even five years after the term of it ending is too long in my mind. And, no, I also don't think it's fair that someone reap the benefits of a work for their entire life (assuming they live a long life). People have to work for a living. If you only come up with one hit song in your life that makes any money I believe you'll need to suck it up and find something else to do for a living. And to be clear, I love music, I play music and I have spent many, many thousands of dollars on music in my life. I have no problem with people getting paid, just not riding it out forever. Especially when the industry is set up to give most of the benefits of long term copyright to the industry, not the artists.
- paulcole 10y ago
  > I also don't think it's fair that someone reap the benefits of a work for their entire life I'm assuming you're against startup equity for a similar reason? After all, why should someone benefit from one period of professional work for the rest of their lives?
  - smhenderson 10y ago
    Not really, that's an investment that continues to generate benefits as an investment. To use your analogy, how about an artist take the fruits of their work and start their own publishing company thereby reaping further reward and providing a benefit to society. In fact the more successful of them do.
    - paulcole 10y ago
      > investment that continues to generate benefits as an investment Isn't a creative work the result of an investment in time spent practicing and learning? And aren't the generated benefits continued sales of that work?
- paulcole 10y ago
  > Especially when the industry is set up to give most of the benefits of long term copyright to the industry, not the artists Also, how do you rationalize this with the fact that you're advocating stripping away one of those few remaining benefits?

smhenderson 10y ago

Bullshit? OK, thanks for explaining why you think my argument is bullshit, even if I think that language is unnecessary. But I do disagree. If I write a hit song and die before the copyright ends than sure, let my family have a cut. But even five years after the term of it ending is too long in my mind. And, no, I also don't think it's fair that someone reap the benefits of a work for their entire life (assuming they live a long life). People have to work for a living. If you only come up with one hit song in your life that makes any money I believe you'll need to suck it up and find something else to do for a living. And to be clear, I love music, I play music and I have spent many, many thousands of dollars on music in my life. I have no problem with people getting paid, just not riding it out forever. Especially when the industry is set up to give most of the benefits of long term copyright to the industry, not the artists.

paulcole 10y ago
> I also don't think it's fair that someone reap the benefits of a work for their entire life I'm assuming you're against startup equity for a similar reason? After all, why should someone benefit from one period of professional work for the rest of their lives?
- smhenderson 10y ago
  Not really, that's an investment that continues to generate benefits as an investment. To use your analogy, how about an artist take the fruits of their work and start their own publishing company thereby reaping further reward and providing a benefit to society. In fact the more successful of them do.
  - paulcole 10y ago
    > investment that continues to generate benefits as an investment Isn't a creative work the result of an investment in time spent practicing and learning? And aren't the generated benefits continued sales of that work?
paulcole 10y ago
> Especially when the industry is set up to give most of the benefits of long term copyright to the industry, not the artists Also, how do you rationalize this with the fact that you're advocating stripping away one of those few remaining benefits?