3 ms·

Before globalization and huge logistical advances there was barely any way to capitalize on works in the public domain... your parents probably didn't benefit n

Before globalization and huge logistical advances there was barely any way to capitalize on works in the public domain... your parents probably didn't benefit nearly as much as you may think. Also, calling this "legal abuse" in any way is just insulting to true abuse and detracts significantly from your comment.

noizejoy 6y ago
Mr. Disney did alright with the stories published by the brothers Grimm.
- bambax 6y ago
  Or the Walt Disney's company with works by Victor Hugo.
dmitriid 6y ago
Ah, yes, it was so hard for authors to benefit from their works 95 years after their death. Now it's so easy, and inspires authors to produce great new works even in afterlife.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  <giggle>
- webmaven 6y ago
  > Ah, yes, it was so hard for authors to benefit from their works 95 years after their death. Now it's so easy, and inspires authors to produce great new works even in afterlife. There are a few near-future scenarios that intersect in interesting ways: The possibility of life extending interventions such that average life expectancy climbs first toward, and then perhaps past, the century mark (life-of-the-author plus anything starts to look ridiculous). The possibility of uploading whether it is a true digitization/emulation or 'just' a simulation of a particular consciousness given enough data. Cryogenic preservation and revivification. Legal decisions on whether such events count as 'death' for purposes of copyright, debt, inheritance, etc. Legal decisions on the personhood and potential emancipation of digitizations, simulations, emulations, etc. Legal decisions on the criminal and civil culpability of such simulations etc. (if considered persons, or their owners if not) for their originals' acts (such as copyright infringement). The copyright status of works created post-mortem by such entities, whether they are considered persons or not (such works might simply be considered or passed-off as 'unpublished', for example) If nothing else, I'm pretty sure that there will be attempts to hack around any legal uncertainty with various permutations and combinations of corporate personhood, copyright assignment, work-for-hire agreements, and smart contracts to get to some desired result regardless of how the legal environment changes, but those still might fail in 'interesting' ways. All of which is to say that we might very well get in to a situation where it is possible to provide incentives for the creation of new works by dead authors, legally speaking. At which point the public, and the public domain, will be well and truly screwed over.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    There's an amazing story by Spyder Robinson that expolres exactly that: Melancholy Elephants, http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html It was published in 1983 and won Hugo Award for Best Short Story. It's as relvant today, as then. Even more relevant.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      Melancholy Elephants is about how eventually every possible permutation of content will have been created and recorded because they belong to somebody and it will become impossible to create anything new (the story is less concerned with the ability to create anything non-infringing). Frankly, I think that particular worry is overblown as it presupposes that no knowledge will ever be lost. Personally, I'm rather more concerned about the works that will be lost because they are owned. BTW, would it surprise you to learn that Spider Robinson is a copyright maximalist?
spacemanmatt 6y ago
> barely any way to capitalize on works in the public domain I think this wrongful take on what capitalism should and shouldn't be allowed to take from the public domain, and why to detract from your comment. However, not as much as the incorrect take on history: Many people capitalized on works in the public domain before the Mickey Mouse taking laws. Please grace us with better research the future. This has been too typical.

noizejoy 6y ago

Mr. Disney did alright with the stories published by the brothers Grimm.

bambax 6y ago
Or the Walt Disney's company with works by Victor Hugo.

dmitriid 6y ago

Ah, yes, it was so hard for authors to benefit from their works 95 years after their death. Now it's so easy, and inspires authors to produce great new works even in afterlife.

spacemanmatt 6y ago
<giggle>
webmaven 6y ago
> Ah, yes, it was so hard for authors to benefit from their works 95 years after their death. Now it's so easy, and inspires authors to produce great new works even in afterlife. There are a few near-future scenarios that intersect in interesting ways: The possibility of life extending interventions such that average life expectancy climbs first toward, and then perhaps past, the century mark (life-of-the-author plus anything starts to look ridiculous). The possibility of uploading whether it is a true digitization/emulation or 'just' a simulation of a particular consciousness given enough data. Cryogenic preservation and revivification. Legal decisions on whether such events count as 'death' for purposes of copyright, debt, inheritance, etc. Legal decisions on the personhood and potential emancipation of digitizations, simulations, emulations, etc. Legal decisions on the criminal and civil culpability of such simulations etc. (if considered persons, or their owners if not) for their originals' acts (such as copyright infringement). The copyright status of works created post-mortem by such entities, whether they are considered persons or not (such works might simply be considered or passed-off as 'unpublished', for example) If nothing else, I'm pretty sure that there will be attempts to hack around any legal uncertainty with various permutations and combinations of corporate personhood, copyright assignment, work-for-hire agreements, and smart contracts to get to some desired result regardless of how the legal environment changes, but those still might fail in 'interesting' ways. All of which is to say that we might very well get in to a situation where it is possible to provide incentives for the creation of new works by dead authors, legally speaking. At which point the public, and the public domain, will be well and truly screwed over.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  There's an amazing story by Spyder Robinson that expolres exactly that: Melancholy Elephants, http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html It was published in 1983 and won Hugo Award for Best Short Story. It's as relvant today, as then. Even more relevant.
  - webmaven 6y ago
    Melancholy Elephants is about how eventually every possible permutation of content will have been created and recorded because they belong to somebody and it will become impossible to create anything new (the story is less concerned with the ability to create anything non-infringing). Frankly, I think that particular worry is overblown as it presupposes that no knowledge will ever be lost. Personally, I'm rather more concerned about the works that will be lost because they are owned. BTW, would it surprise you to learn that Spider Robinson is a copyright maximalist?

spacemanmatt 6y ago

> barely any way to capitalize on works in the public domain I think this wrongful take on what capitalism should and shouldn't be allowed to take from the public domain, and why to detract from your comment. However, not as much as the incorrect take on history: Many people capitalized on works in the public domain before the Mickey Mouse taking laws. Please grace us with better research the future. This has been too typical.