4 ms·

But there is a counterpoint to that. More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. > unlimited copyright facilitates exploitation by a different set

by javert 6y ago

But there is a counterpoint to that. More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. > unlimited copyright facilitates exploitation by a different set of corporations "Exploitation" is a loaded word. Nobody is going to pay $500 to read Harry Potter. What you would see with unlimited copyright is what you already see: there is a reasonable maximum that can be charged for (say) books in a given market. In other markets (e.g. 3rd world), prices are lower. Scientific publishing is an entirely different issue, BTW. Science journal publishers rape universities and the general public. That is not really because of copyright. It's a different system of abuse that I don't want to raise here.

jbay808 6y ago
Of the creators you know, how many of them would rank the limited duration of copyright terms among their chief worries that lead them to re-think a career as a creator?
metalliqaz 6y ago
> More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. This is false. It helps corporations and hardly anyone else. There was incentive to create music and other works before copyright and there would still be without it.
- javert 6y ago
  This side-steps the idea presented in my original comment (4th parent of this comment).
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Would Harry Potter still have been written if copyright was only 20 years? Is there any book written where the author is thinking "Hmm, copyright. It's not worth it for me to write this where I only get paid for 20 years. But 70 years' royalties? Yeah, that's enough to make it worth the effort." Does anyone think that way? They shouldn't, because for almost all books, the income past 20 years is zero. Now, corporations are a bit different, and if you're Disney making a movie, the revenue past 20 years is actually something you consider. Still... would the Avengers movies, say, not get made without 95 year copyright? I doubt it. They made enough money in the first year that they would still have been made even if copyright was quite short. So I can't buy this argument that "almost-forever" copyright incentivizes creation. I mean, it does, to some degree. But with the current duration, we are ridiculously far past the law of diminishing returns.
wolco 6y ago
maybe rape isn't the best word here. I invite you to edit because the rest of the post has a point.
- javert 6y ago
  It's too late to edit, as far as I can tell. Why do you have a problem with that word? Genuinely asking. If it's because you don't want to "trigger" people, shouldn't you have also not used it?
  - rectang 6y ago
    I was not "triggered", but it stood out to me and bothered me, as well — I thought that the it was ill-used, and undermined you rhetorically. It's too horrific and overbearing a word to be used for most metaphors, overpowering whatever it gets attached to.

by javert 6y ago

jbay808 6y ago

Of the creators you know, how many of them would rank the limited duration of copyright terms among their chief worries that lead them to re-think a career as a creator?

metalliqaz 6y ago

> More copyright helps creators and incentivizes creation. This is false. It helps corporations and hardly anyone else. There was incentive to create music and other works before copyright and there would still be without it.

javert 6y ago
This side-steps the idea presented in my original comment (4th parent of this comment).

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Would Harry Potter still have been written if copyright was only 20 years? Is there any book written where the author is thinking "Hmm, copyright. It's not worth it for me to write this where I only get paid for 20 years. But 70 years' royalties? Yeah, that's enough to make it worth the effort." Does anyone think that way? They shouldn't, because for almost all books, the income past 20 years is zero. Now, corporations are a bit different, and if you're Disney making a movie, the revenue past 20 years is actually something you consider. Still... would the Avengers movies, say, not get made without 95 year copyright? I doubt it. They made enough money in the first year that they would still have been made even if copyright was quite short. So I can't buy this argument that "almost-forever" copyright incentivizes creation. I mean, it does, to some degree. But with the current duration, we are ridiculously far past the law of diminishing returns.

wolco 6y ago

maybe rape isn't the best word here. I invite you to edit because the rest of the post has a point.

javert 6y ago
It's too late to edit, as far as I can tell. Why do you have a problem with that word? Genuinely asking. If it's because you don't want to "trigger" people, shouldn't you have also not used it?
- rectang 6y ago
  I was not "triggered", but it stood out to me and bothered me, as well — I thought that the it was ill-used, and undermined you rhetorically. It's too horrific and overbearing a word to be used for most metaphors, overpowering whatever it gets attached to.