7 ms·
Problems: - Company hires a bunch of artists to make something, pays them one time, keeps gathering checks decades after the artists are dead, and even longer
by khedoros1 9y ago
Problems:
- Company hires a bunch of artists to make something, pays them one time, keeps gathering checks decades after the artists are dead, and even longer after they're getting any payment for the work.
- Artist collects money from their work, dies, and the estate continues collecting for decades.
The purpose of copyright should be to encourage artists to create works for the enrichment of society as a whole, by giving them a monopoly on sale of those works for a limited time, followed by a release of the work into the public domain.
Instead, we've got constantly-extending terms, slim-to-no chance of something still being culturally relevant by the time its copyright expires, and people besides the artists receiving the most benefit, in many cases.
Copyright itself can be a good thing, but the current U.S. implementation of it sucks.
- make3 9y agoi agree that for patents, monopolising an invention forever allows innovation too much. but for art? the world will survive without getting able to copy a specific artist's work for free.. they created something out of thin air, there is very little reason for them to benefit from it, including selling it's rights or them moving on to their successors, like all other things that have value
- sigstoat 9y ago> i agree that for patents, monopolising an invention forever allows innovation too much. patents are largely unrelated to discussion of copyright. the durations are separate, and in fact, patent durations are largely harmonized to be 20 years, now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent that's nothing compared to the ~75 years of copyright.
- Y_Y 9y agoAn artistic work that came from thin air? That didn't derive partially from the society in which it was created or take inspiration from preceding works? I don't think such a thing exists.
- make3 9y agothe part of the shared social contribution that is true for all sources of revenue (because this is also true for engineering, business, etc) is usually paid for by the taxes paid the person who will have said revenue
- wang_li 9y agoThe societal contribution is also present "in the air" for everyone, but only one artist ever makes a particular work. That would suggest that the key contribution comes from the artist, not from society.
- MarkMc 9y agoThe time limit on copyright seems to be just an inefficient form of taxation. If Disney keeps copyright of Snow White the government can tax Disney's extra profit to pay for cancer research. Isn't that more socially useful than giving everyone the right to watch Snow White on YouTube for free?
- AlexandrB 9y ago> Isn't that more socially useful than giving everyone the right to watch Snow White on YouTube for free? Why stop there. Wouldn't it be ever more socially useful to hire vandals to break windows and graffiti houses so the government can collect the taxes on the repairs. See also: war. Just because something generates economic activity, doesn't mean it's a net benefit to society.
- MarkMc 9y agoOK let me drop 'socially useful' from the question: Is it better to (a) allow anyone to watch Snow White on YouTube for free; or (b) fund cancer research with a tax on Disney's sales of Snow White? With vandalism the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. With copyright extension it seems to me the benefits outweigh the costs.
- JimmyAustin 9y agoThe alternative of course is that someone could use the Snow White IP to create new media, in the same way that Sherlock Holmes has generated numerous films. Guy Ritchie's two Holmes movies have netted over $1B USD at the box office. That wouldn't have happened if the Doyle estate still held the copyright. Not to mention the fact that the Snow White character itself was pulled from the public domain.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago> pay for cancer research This is an appeal to emotion. It's not very honest to cherry pick a nice sounding example. How about taxes spent for wars and so on? > Isn't that more socially useful than giving everyone the right to watch Snow White on YouTube for free? The money that people saved by not paying disney do not disappear. They will be spent, perhaps on cancer research, or something else.
- webmaven 9y agoIt's worth noting that the Copyright Term Extension Act (aka the Sonny Bono Act aka The Mickey Mouse Protection Act)[0] passed a bit over 20 years ago (and the term was extended by 20 years), so I think a certain amount of vigilance is warranted this year for (stealthy) attempts to retroactively extend copyrights. But if that doesn't happen, then next January will finally see works start entering the public domain again, starting with ones from 1923.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-its-not-planning-another-copyright-extension-push/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/hollywood-says-i...