4 ms·

I get what you're going for but it would be an unmitigated disaster essentially reducing the value of all creative output to 0. So no thanks.

handrous 5y ago
Why would only being able to exclusively make money off a published work for 1/3 of a lifetime reduce the value of creative output to 0?
- breakfastduck 5y ago
  Because not everything is an overnight success. Someone could make a song/comic that never gets popular. Years later, someone takes it now it's free from copyright, uses it and achieves popularity. The original creator is still alive and has had nothing back. Even further, if it has no copyright huge companies like spotify would not have to pay any royalties at all to sell or distribute music, pocketing everything themselves. I'd rather the creator got the money.
  - handrous 5y ago
    OK. And that drives the value of creative output to zero... how? To zero. How? I'm not seeing the part where the possibility that one's work might flop for a decade or three and then be made a smash-hit by someone else keeps people from creating almost exactly as much original art as they do now. I'd expect the effect on behavior to be negligible, especially with terms closer to 30 years. Meanwhile it would free up an awful lot of material for creative inspiration. I have no doubt that would result in more good art, overall.
    - breakfastduck 5y ago
      And again you're missing the point. I'm not disputing that it would give an increase in creativity, but it would open countless doors for huge corporations to completely exploit creatives. You're encouraging a situation where it becomes completely nonviable to be an artist commercially. It's already bad enough as it is at the moment with Spotify et all pocketing the vast majority of proceeds. It's shocking to me that you're willing to completely overlook the fairness of the system in return for 'more art'. It is not appropriate whatsoever to strip ANYONE of their ownership of a piece of art they have created. Why do you feel entitled to that?
      - handrous 5y ago
        > It's shocking to me that you're willing to completely overlook the fairness of the system in return for 'more art'. It is not appropriate whatsoever to strip ANYONE of their ownership of a piece of art they have created. Why do you feel entitled to that? Are you genuinely unaware of the arguments that got us the invention of copyright in the first place, or are you aware of them and just asking me to quote them? [EDIT] in case it's the former, let me just note that it's very much not obvious or in any sense "natural" that a person who hums a tune they just thought up gets to keep anyone else who heard them from humming it, in any context or for any reason, including for pay. That we, collectively, will it so (with laws) is precisely to encourage more art to be both created and shared. The enhanced level of creation is the entire point. Copyright lets you put an idea in someone's head and then prevent them from doing much with it. That is also an imposition, and a pretty damn extreme one, at that.
        breakfastduck 5y ago
        Humming a tune and claiming copyright when someone else hums it is not the same as working on an album writing personal songs and producing, mixing and engineering it for a year for someone else to completely rip it off scott free.

handrous 5y ago

Why would only being able to exclusively make money off a published work for 1/3 of a lifetime reduce the value of creative output to 0?

breakfastduck 5y ago
Because not everything is an overnight success. Someone could make a song/comic that never gets popular. Years later, someone takes it now it's free from copyright, uses it and achieves popularity. The original creator is still alive and has had nothing back. Even further, if it has no copyright huge companies like spotify would not have to pay any royalties at all to sell or distribute music, pocketing everything themselves. I'd rather the creator got the money.
- handrous 5y ago
  OK. And that drives the value of creative output to zero... how? To zero. How? I'm not seeing the part where the possibility that one's work might flop for a decade or three and then be made a smash-hit by someone else keeps people from creating almost exactly as much original art as they do now. I'd expect the effect on behavior to be negligible, especially with terms closer to 30 years. Meanwhile it would free up an awful lot of material for creative inspiration. I have no doubt that would result in more good art, overall.
  - breakfastduck 5y ago
    And again you're missing the point. I'm not disputing that it would give an increase in creativity, but it would open countless doors for huge corporations to completely exploit creatives. You're encouraging a situation where it becomes completely nonviable to be an artist commercially. It's already bad enough as it is at the moment with Spotify et all pocketing the vast majority of proceeds. It's shocking to me that you're willing to completely overlook the fairness of the system in return for 'more art'. It is not appropriate whatsoever to strip ANYONE of their ownership of a piece of art they have created. Why do you feel entitled to that?
    - handrous 5y ago
      > It's shocking to me that you're willing to completely overlook the fairness of the system in return for 'more art'. It is not appropriate whatsoever to strip ANYONE of their ownership of a piece of art they have created. Why do you feel entitled to that? Are you genuinely unaware of the arguments that got us the invention of copyright in the first place, or are you aware of them and just asking me to quote them? [EDIT] in case it's the former, let me just note that it's very much not obvious or in any sense "natural" that a person who hums a tune they just thought up gets to keep anyone else who heard them from humming it, in any context or for any reason, including for pay. That we, collectively, will it so (with laws) is precisely to encourage more art to be both created and shared. The enhanced level of creation is the entire point. Copyright lets you put an idea in someone's head and then prevent them from doing much with it. That is also an imposition, and a pretty damn extreme one, at that.
      - breakfastduck 5y ago
        Humming a tune and claiming copyright when someone else hums it is not the same as working on an album writing personal songs and producing, mixing and engineering it for a year for someone else to completely rip it off scott free.