4 ms·

I'm assuming this was sarcasm. But to be sure I'll provide an opposite view: A [farmer|musician] has [a plow|a guitar], and he uses it to [grow food|play musi

I'm assuming this was sarcasm. But to be sure I'll provide an opposite view: A [farmer|musician] has [a plow|a guitar], and he uses it to [grow food|play music]. This provides value to other people, so he sells the results of his work. When he dies, the [plow|guitar] is inherited by his children, and they decide if they will use it and do necessary maintenance. If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. As creating copyrighted works is a lot harder than cloning them, it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. But the important word here is temporary. If you take a few weeks to write a song, you might get at most a few years of this monopoly. After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane.

axilmar 8y ago
> I'm assuming this was sarcasm. Unfortunately for you, I am deadly serious. > If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. There is no such thing as 'stops working'. There is a thing called 'stops providing value'. A farmer that does not produce anything has stopped providing value to others. A musician's the music of which is no longer desirable also has stopped producing value to others. > it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. No, he doesn't get a monopoly through copyright. A monopoly is a state where within a domain, there is only one producer. You can't say the domain of music only contains the song creator. > After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. You haven't presented any reason for doing so. > What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane. If your work is so good that it has mass appeal over a span of 100 years, then why not get paid for it? why do you want free stuff like this? after all, we are talking about a piece of work that would have almost unprecenteded success.

axilmar 8y ago

> I'm assuming this was sarcasm. Unfortunately for you, I am deadly serious. > If a [farmer|musician] stops working, there is no reason he should get paid. There is no such thing as 'stops working'. There is a thing called 'stops providing value'. A farmer that does not produce anything has stopped providing value to others. A musician's the music of which is no longer desirable also has stopped producing value to others. > it is reasonable for the creator to get a temporary monopoly. No, he doesn't get a monopoly through copyright. A monopoly is a state where within a domain, there is only one producer. You can't say the domain of music only contains the song creator. > After that, it's time to get working on your next creation. You haven't presented any reason for doing so. > What's the right time period? For a song, maybe a year. For a well-reasearched book, maybe 5 years. If you keep working on it after release, an extension might be acceptable, but even then 10 years should be the maximum. 75 years after your death? That's insane. If your work is so good that it has mass appeal over a span of 100 years, then why not get paid for it? why do you want free stuff like this? after all, we are talking about a piece of work that would have almost unprecenteded success.