4 ms·

Because trademarks are not governed by the same set of laws, and are pretty different in purpose. You not being able sell sweet fizzy drinks using Coca-Cola bra

Because trademarks are not governed by the same set of laws, and are pretty different in purpose. You not being able sell sweet fizzy drinks using Coca-Cola branding is at least as much for the benefit of consumers (so they don't buy non-Coca-Cola drink when they want Coca-Cola) as it is for the Coca-Cola company. A trademark is really a very different thing than say a novel or a film or a piece of music or even a piece of software. The only way in which copyright and trademarks are really relatable is under the vague, squishy and not-very-useful umbrella of 'intellectual property'. I think it's fair for me to say that when I am talking about creators of novels and films etc. and copyright limits w.r.t. encouraging/discouraging creators from creating I shouldn't have to talk about trademarks, which have very little to do with the sort of creation I'm talking about.

toasterlovin 8y ago
Thank you for pointing out the consumer protection aspect of trademark, I did not have that in mind when I made that comparison (I had in mind the aspect of trademark that benefits the holder, which I think actually has a lot in common with copyright, but I’ll not belabor an irrelevancy). So if I am understanding you correctly, your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? To be clear, I’m asking for your opinion as a judge of moral issues, not for the legal theory behind copyright.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y ago
  I suppose I don't think that copyright law is the right place to legislate morality. > your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? No, in general I think that people have a right to a share of the value created by their work (copyrightable and otherwise). But in practice this is often not what happens, even with copyright. Your example of a song used in an ad: generally the advertiser would just purchase the rights to the song outright, and so the creator wouldn't necessarily really get anything like a 'share' of the value created by use of their work, but just a flat fee.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    > Your example of a song used in an ad: generally the advertiser would just purchase the rights to the song outright, and so the creator wouldn't necessarily really get anything like a 'share' of the value created by use of their work, but just a flat fee. Sure, they don't literally get a percentage of the value created with their work, but the basis for thinking they deserve to be paid at all is that they created a thing that is being used to create value for someone else. Furthermore, I think that if you drill down into the justification for why creators should be paid at all (despite the fact that someone else using their work does not deprive the creator of it's use for themself), you'll find that it is ultimately tied to the fact that a given creative work simply could not exist without it's creator. Literally no other person in existence is capable of making that exact work. And when that is the justification for why a creator deserves to have some control over the use of their work, I think life of the creator is a reasonable timeframe for the creator to maintain legal control over the use of their work (accepting that it may not be justified for this control to be absolute). I think reasonable people could argue that such a timeframe is too long by pointing to issues of public benefit, but I don't think life of the creator is completely unjustified or unreasonable on its face.

toasterlovin 8y ago

Thank you for pointing out the consumer protection aspect of trademark, I did not have that in mind when I made that comparison (I had in mind the aspect of trademark that benefits the holder, which I think actually has a lot in common with copyright, but I’ll not belabor an irrelevancy). So if I am understanding you correctly, your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? To be clear, I’m asking for your opinion as a judge of moral issues, not for the legal theory behind copyright.

_emacsomancer_ 8y ago
I suppose I don't think that copyright law is the right place to legislate morality. > your stance is that the creator of some copyrightable work has no inherent right to control the use of that work? And you think that the only reason they should be allowed to control the use of their work is to incentivize creation of new works, not because they deserve a share of the value created by the use of their work (a song used in an advertisement, for example)? No, in general I think that people have a right to a share of the value created by their work (copyrightable and otherwise). But in practice this is often not what happens, even with copyright. Your example of a song used in an ad: generally the advertiser would just purchase the rights to the song outright, and so the creator wouldn't necessarily really get anything like a 'share' of the value created by use of their work, but just a flat fee.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  > Your example of a song used in an ad: generally the advertiser would just purchase the rights to the song outright, and so the creator wouldn't necessarily really get anything like a 'share' of the value created by use of their work, but just a flat fee. Sure, they don't literally get a percentage of the value created with their work, but the basis for thinking they deserve to be paid at all is that they created a thing that is being used to create value for someone else. Furthermore, I think that if you drill down into the justification for why creators should be paid at all (despite the fact that someone else using their work does not deprive the creator of it's use for themself), you'll find that it is ultimately tied to the fact that a given creative work simply could not exist without it's creator. Literally no other person in existence is capable of making that exact work. And when that is the justification for why a creator deserves to have some control over the use of their work, I think life of the creator is a reasonable timeframe for the creator to maintain legal control over the use of their work (accepting that it may not be justified for this control to be absolute). I think reasonable people could argue that such a timeframe is too long by pointing to issues of public benefit, but I don't think life of the creator is completely unjustified or unreasonable on its face.