6 ms·

Totally. Which is why it ends with the author's death. OH WAIT. But it's totally necessary; back before it existed no one ever made any money for their creativ

Totally. Which is why it ends with the author's death. OH WAIT. But it's totally necessary; back before it existed no one ever made any money for their creative works, so with no incentive no one ever made anything creative before copyright law. OH WAIT.

distances 9y ago
This kind of rhetoric is quite tiresome, please don't.
- sdbryan 9y ago
  This rhetoric might be tiresome except for the FACT that it is so devastatingly true. A significantly different copyright legal framework might be defensible but the current system is simply laws bought by the highest bidder
- coldacid 9y ago
  He's not wrong, though.
  - distances 9y ago
    Yes, he is right of course. The "mock surprise" way of delivering a point isn't at all conductive to a discussion though.
    - lostcolony 9y ago
      The point I was replying to was either equally flippant, or it was incredibly naive. I am assuming someone on HN, posting about copyright, is the former, not the latter. If the person was literally so naive to believe that the only way for a creator to be paid for their work is to have the copyright system we currently have, then I apologize for my tone.
- explainplease 9y ago
  This kind of complaint is quite tiresome. Please don't. Seriously, I tire of this notion that discussion must be dry and boring. Holding discussion hostage to "don't say anything that might offend, police your tone, and say everything as plainly and factually as possible"-type rules allows intellectually dishonest participants to game the system, i.e. bullshit asymmetry. Clever use of rhetoric is an effective tool for highlighting disingenuous arguments. In this age of information overload, we need it.
petre 9y ago
What if the author is a company? Like Disney.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  I disagree with the premise that the company could be an author. It's the employer of the authors, commissioning them to create something. I'd call Disney the copyright holder.
  - petre 9y ago
    Walt Disney was an actual person and one of the founders of what became The Walt Disney Company.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      Yes? Companies are made up of people and have founders who are "actual people". He also acted as an artist in various positions within his company (producer, actor, director, writer, animator). On the whole, his copyrights were owned by the company, though. He died in 1966, and that has no bearing on when copyrights owned by the Walt Disney Company will expire. Who, specifically, is that 1928 copyright still encouraging to create new media? How does it benefit society more to have insanely-long copyright terms than it would to free up creations earlier for riffs, remixes, and so on?
      - petre 9y ago
        My point was that copyright is not going away after the holder dies if the IP is transferred to a company.
        khedoros1 9y ago
        And my point was that it shouldn't be that way.
- cornholio 9y ago
make3 9y ago
1. things that are worth something (like money) don't disappear at their owners death 2. this is disingenuous. it is already the case that the massive majority of artists have a very hard time generating a sustainable revenue stream from their work, and this has always been the case. the goal of a copyright system is, amongst other things, to try to help with that.
- lostcolony 9y ago
  1. The author no longer receives value for it. Per another comment, allowing the paid transfer of copyright, but limiting it to a small amount of time since creation/publication (i.e., 14 years), to allow the owner of the copyright to milk it, still provides plenty of value and incentive, while also allowing things to return to the public domain as part of our shared culture. 2. So with copyright it's super hard for artists to live off their work. How is that defending copyright? If you're claiming "Well, it'd be even worse -without- copyright!", you haven't actually made a case for that. Certainly, if we want to fix the fact artists have a hard time, perhaps an alternative monetization scheme, irrespective of copyright, is the right answer?

distances 9y ago

This kind of rhetoric is quite tiresome, please don't.

sdbryan 9y ago
This rhetoric might be tiresome except for the FACT that it is so devastatingly true. A significantly different copyright legal framework might be defensible but the current system is simply laws bought by the highest bidder
coldacid 9y ago
He's not wrong, though.
- distances 9y ago
  Yes, he is right of course. The "mock surprise" way of delivering a point isn't at all conductive to a discussion though.
  - lostcolony 9y ago
    The point I was replying to was either equally flippant, or it was incredibly naive. I am assuming someone on HN, posting about copyright, is the former, not the latter. If the person was literally so naive to believe that the only way for a creator to be paid for their work is to have the copyright system we currently have, then I apologize for my tone.
explainplease 9y ago
This kind of complaint is quite tiresome. Please don't. Seriously, I tire of this notion that discussion must be dry and boring. Holding discussion hostage to "don't say anything that might offend, police your tone, and say everything as plainly and factually as possible"-type rules allows intellectually dishonest participants to game the system, i.e. bullshit asymmetry. Clever use of rhetoric is an effective tool for highlighting disingenuous arguments. In this age of information overload, we need it.

petre 9y ago

What if the author is a company? Like Disney.

khedoros1 9y ago
I disagree with the premise that the company could be an author. It's the employer of the authors, commissioning them to create something. I'd call Disney the copyright holder.
- petre 9y ago
  Walt Disney was an actual person and one of the founders of what became The Walt Disney Company.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Yes? Companies are made up of people and have founders who are "actual people". He also acted as an artist in various positions within his company (producer, actor, director, writer, animator). On the whole, his copyrights were owned by the company, though. He died in 1966, and that has no bearing on when copyrights owned by the Walt Disney Company will expire. Who, specifically, is that 1928 copyright still encouraging to create new media? How does it benefit society more to have insanely-long copyright terms than it would to free up creations earlier for riffs, remixes, and so on?
    - petre 9y ago
      My point was that copyright is not going away after the holder dies if the IP is transferred to a company.
      - khedoros1 9y ago
        And my point was that it shouldn't be that way.
cornholio 9y ago

make3 9y ago

1. things that are worth something (like money) don't disappear at their owners death 2. this is disingenuous. it is already the case that the massive majority of artists have a very hard time generating a sustainable revenue stream from their work, and this has always been the case. the goal of a copyright system is, amongst other things, to try to help with that.

lostcolony 9y ago
1. The author no longer receives value for it. Per another comment, allowing the paid transfer of copyright, but limiting it to a small amount of time since creation/publication (i.e., 14 years), to allow the owner of the copyright to milk it, still provides plenty of value and incentive, while also allowing things to return to the public domain as part of our shared culture. 2. So with copyright it's super hard for artists to live off their work. How is that defending copyright? If you're claiming "Well, it'd be even worse -without- copyright!", you haven't actually made a case for that. Certainly, if we want to fix the fact artists have a hard time, perhaps an alternative monetization scheme, irrespective of copyright, is the right answer?