3 ms·

> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Boy you are generous, if it

> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all. Boy you are generous, if it was up to me copyrights would have a life of 10 years, no extensions/renewals. Ten years ought to be enough to squeeze a healthy chuck of profits out of your material. If after 10 years you can't/haven't come up with anything new, then you better find a new job.

FreakyT 8y ago
Agreed -- in addition, a shorter term like this fixes a major issue with using "life" specifically, which ends up unintentionally creating an incentive to murder the creator.
- maze-le 8y ago
  Wow, never thought about it this way. Its probably a nice plot for a crime novel.
- EADGBE 8y ago
  It'd be better to be able to by stock in an artist, and continue to let them live and create, while profiting yourself off those dividends.
hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
I don't understand why HN seems to want everyone to be a wage slave. If I create original work, I want to profit off it for my life. Anything else is just punishing people who are creators rather than property owners.
- cyphar 8y ago
  Because: a) Almost all artists sign deals with publishers to "get their foot in the door" which end up giving all of the rights to the publisher, and so the artist ends up being a "wage slave" because they don't profit off the rights of the work they made. b) Locking away works for entire generations means that cultural artistic development is stifled. Shakespeare's works were based on previous works and stories, and under the copyright system of today he would have been sued for his plays (and we probably wouldn't have them today). It is insanely short-sighted for corporations to lobby for longer copyright terms to have monopolies, at the expense of eradicating future generations' Shakespeares. c) The original purpose of copyright (under the Statute of Anne in 1710) was to provide a very limited monopoly by the authors (not publishers) so that they are incentivised to create new works. By your own admission, having lifetime copyright protections does not incentivise the creation of new works (you could argue that it actually is a counter-incentive if you wrote one work that became very popular early in your career). A return to that system would be a significant improvement.
  - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
    a) not relevant, particularly in 2018 when self-publishing is becoming increasingly common. b) I specifically said my lifetime. An average work might be covered for two generations. Not a big deal. If Shakespeare's work is so derivative, then I don't have a problem. 50 Shades of Gray started as Twilight fan-fiction. You can be derivative without being a mashup. c) you're talking about publishers again, as if that's relevant. As for this: By your own admission, having lifetime copyright protections does not incentivise the creation of new works I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth to form a low-quality argument. At no point did I ever say or imply anything of the sort!
    - cyphar 8y ago
      Self-publishing is ridiculously uncommon, and it's just silly to argue that the small amount of large works that succeeded through self-publishing somehow diminishes the immense power and size of large publishing houses (for movies and books -- there is more self-published music these days). I can't even think of a recent example of a popular book or movie that was self-published ('The Martian' was written in public independently but the books were obviously printed by a single publisher). > I specifically said my lifetime. An average work might be covered for two generations. Not a big deal. The average lifetime is more like 5-6 generations (each generation being maybe 15 years). I disagree it isn't a big deal, and I also very much disagree that it's fine if Shakespeare didn't exist because his works were derivative. > 50 Shades of Gray started as Twilight fan-fiction. The work '50 Shades of Gray' has absolutely nothing in common with 'Twilight', despite it's history. Not to mention that the author probably got permission of some sort. Shakespeare's plays were far more significant mash-ups of previous stories and works (with changes obviously, but nowhere near as many changes as the two works you mentioned). > At no point did I ever say or imply anything of the sort! Yes you did. From your original comment: > If I create original work, I want to profit off it for my life. If you have a guaranteed profit source for the rest of your life, what reasonable person would ever find a need to make more works (there's no point in getting more money if you already have whatever you need)? The point of copyright is to incentivise the creation of new works -- which is the precise reason why it is limited in every country on Earth (and was even more limited in the Statute of Anne). Having a limit to any reasonable person is equivalent to unlimited (since once your dead, there's no profit motive any more) has the same effect of removing the incentive for more works. If you don't believe that the purpose of copyright is to incentise new works, read the US constitution (I imagine you're in the US) or whatever copyright law is applicable in your country. > [Congress has the Right] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
- _jal 8y ago
  > I want to profit off it for my life Of course you do. Everyone wants free money. But look at the flip side - you want everyone else to accept an obligation to not do a a number of things with that work, and other people to enforce your rights, which is a claim on other people's time and money. So even if you believe there's some moral right to prevent others from doing things with some "intellectual property", you're still stuck compromising with all the people you're demanding do or not do certain things. > Anything else is just punishing people who are creators rather than property owners. Actually, you're calling a failure to coerce others into to building legal regimes to your preferred specifications a 'punishment'. You might instead ask, why should the fact that I scribbled something down create legal obligations on someone I have never met?
  - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
    Everyone wants free money. It's not free money. It's passive income from intellectual property. So even if you believe there's some moral right to prevent others from doing things with some "intellectual property" It's a legal right. Morality has nothing to do with it, aside from your own attempt to baselessly undermine opposing arguments. Actually, you're calling a failure to coerce others into to building legal regimes to your preferred specifications a 'punishment'. Now you're just getting into "property is theft" and "taxation is violence" level nonsense. By your logic, why shouldn't I be able to just park an RV on your lawn and live there? Property rights are just some legal construct.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      > It's a legal right. We agree that the current laws are like this, but laws change all the time and laws are supposed to reflect society's ethics (in the US this is a joke nowadays -- they reflect the (lack of) ethics of large corporations). If the current laws are unfair, then having a discussion of how the laws should be (to inform a decision on whether such a reform should be lobbied for and put to into an actual law) is entirely fair. Dismissing such discussions with "that's the way it is" is just silly -- would you have made similar comments to the civil rights movements or other such movements?
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  I'm guessing you don't contribute to open source software then.
  - hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
    I don't. I would if I were at least paid to, but I focus on writing software for myself to generate income instead of generating some multiple of my salary for an employer. There was an article on HN about an open source developer who is the sole maintainer of some complex, common tool (I can't recall what) who barely scrapes along. He's created many millions of dollars in value for others yet he can barely keep food on the table. IMO, open source is great for consumers and middle-men, but takes advantage of and devalues software creators.

FreakyT 8y ago

Agreed -- in addition, a shorter term like this fixes a major issue with using "life" specifically, which ends up unintentionally creating an incentive to murder the creator.

maze-le 8y ago
Wow, never thought about it this way. Its probably a nice plot for a crime novel.
EADGBE 8y ago
It'd be better to be able to by stock in an artist, and continue to let them live and create, while profiting yourself off those dividends.

hfdgiutdryg 8y ago

I don't understand why HN seems to want everyone to be a wage slave. If I create original work, I want to profit off it for my life. Anything else is just punishing people who are creators rather than property owners.

cyphar 8y ago
Because: a) Almost all artists sign deals with publishers to "get their foot in the door" which end up giving all of the rights to the publisher, and so the artist ends up being a "wage slave" because they don't profit off the rights of the work they made. b) Locking away works for entire generations means that cultural artistic development is stifled. Shakespeare's works were based on previous works and stories, and under the copyright system of today he would have been sued for his plays (and we probably wouldn't have them today). It is insanely short-sighted for corporations to lobby for longer copyright terms to have monopolies, at the expense of eradicating future generations' Shakespeares. c) The original purpose of copyright (under the Statute of Anne in 1710) was to provide a very limited monopoly by the authors (not publishers) so that they are incentivised to create new works. By your own admission, having lifetime copyright protections does not incentivise the creation of new works (you could argue that it actually is a counter-incentive if you wrote one work that became very popular early in your career). A return to that system would be a significant improvement.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  a) not relevant, particularly in 2018 when self-publishing is becoming increasingly common. b) I specifically said my lifetime. An average work might be covered for two generations. Not a big deal. If Shakespeare's work is so derivative, then I don't have a problem. 50 Shades of Gray started as Twilight fan-fiction. You can be derivative without being a mashup. c) you're talking about publishers again, as if that's relevant. As for this: By your own admission, having lifetime copyright protections does not incentivise the creation of new works I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth to form a low-quality argument. At no point did I ever say or imply anything of the sort!
  - cyphar 8y ago
    Self-publishing is ridiculously uncommon, and it's just silly to argue that the small amount of large works that succeeded through self-publishing somehow diminishes the immense power and size of large publishing houses (for movies and books -- there is more self-published music these days). I can't even think of a recent example of a popular book or movie that was self-published ('The Martian' was written in public independently but the books were obviously printed by a single publisher). > I specifically said my lifetime. An average work might be covered for two generations. Not a big deal. The average lifetime is more like 5-6 generations (each generation being maybe 15 years). I disagree it isn't a big deal, and I also very much disagree that it's fine if Shakespeare didn't exist because his works were derivative. > 50 Shades of Gray started as Twilight fan-fiction. The work '50 Shades of Gray' has absolutely nothing in common with 'Twilight', despite it's history. Not to mention that the author probably got permission of some sort. Shakespeare's plays were far more significant mash-ups of previous stories and works (with changes obviously, but nowhere near as many changes as the two works you mentioned). > At no point did I ever say or imply anything of the sort! Yes you did. From your original comment: > If I create original work, I want to profit off it for my life. If you have a guaranteed profit source for the rest of your life, what reasonable person would ever find a need to make more works (there's no point in getting more money if you already have whatever you need)? The point of copyright is to incentivise the creation of new works -- which is the precise reason why it is limited in every country on Earth (and was even more limited in the Statute of Anne). Having a limit to any reasonable person is equivalent to unlimited (since once your dead, there's no profit motive any more) has the same effect of removing the incentive for more works. If you don't believe that the purpose of copyright is to incentise new works, read the US constitution (I imagine you're in the US) or whatever copyright law is applicable in your country. > [Congress has the Right] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
_jal 8y ago
> I want to profit off it for my life Of course you do. Everyone wants free money. But look at the flip side - you want everyone else to accept an obligation to not do a a number of things with that work, and other people to enforce your rights, which is a claim on other people's time and money. So even if you believe there's some moral right to prevent others from doing things with some "intellectual property", you're still stuck compromising with all the people you're demanding do or not do certain things. > Anything else is just punishing people who are creators rather than property owners. Actually, you're calling a failure to coerce others into to building legal regimes to your preferred specifications a 'punishment'. You might instead ask, why should the fact that I scribbled something down create legal obligations on someone I have never met?
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  Everyone wants free money. It's not free money. It's passive income from intellectual property. So even if you believe there's some moral right to prevent others from doing things with some "intellectual property" It's a legal right. Morality has nothing to do with it, aside from your own attempt to baselessly undermine opposing arguments. Actually, you're calling a failure to coerce others into to building legal regimes to your preferred specifications a 'punishment'. Now you're just getting into "property is theft" and "taxation is violence" level nonsense. By your logic, why shouldn't I be able to just park an RV on your lawn and live there? Property rights are just some legal construct.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    > It's a legal right. We agree that the current laws are like this, but laws change all the time and laws are supposed to reflect society's ethics (in the US this is a joke nowadays -- they reflect the (lack of) ethics of large corporations). If the current laws are unfair, then having a discussion of how the laws should be (to inform a decision on whether such a reform should be lobbied for and put to into an actual law) is entirely fair. Dismissing such discussions with "that's the way it is" is just silly -- would you have made similar comments to the civil rights movements or other such movements?
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
I'm guessing you don't contribute to open source software then.
- hfdgiutdryg 8y ago
  I don't. I would if I were at least paid to, but I focus on writing software for myself to generate income instead of generating some multiple of my salary for an employer. There was an article on HN about an open source developer who is the sole maintainer of some complex, common tool (I can't recall what) who barely scrapes along. He's created many millions of dollars in value for others yet he can barely keep food on the table. IMO, open source is great for consumers and middle-men, but takes advantage of and devalues software creators.