3 ms·
i 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 speci
by make3 9y ago
i 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.