5 ms·

Presumably this will encourage the creator of the 1914 work to create new works.

by EvanAnderson 5y ago

soperj 5y ago
I personally have been waiting for new John McCormack material for a long long time.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jkonline 5y ago
  See, by siding with just McCormick, though, you're absolutely missing out on all the great Schmick content. They're Collab albums, produced much later and (of course) in John's heyday, are amazing. Spicy, even.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah. He'll sell his records, make his money. After a while he'll have to create more if he wants to earn more. It totally won't enable over a hundred years of rent seeking for him, descendants who could inherit his property after he's dead and of course the monopolistic copyright giants.
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  That's obviously facile. He's dead, and unable to make decisions anymore. I, on the other hand, am alive and would definitely have decided to become a world-renowned operatic singer, if only copyright wasn't so short that I couldn't pass on the rights to my artistic creations to my children's children's children's children's children's children's children. I could pass it on to my children's children's children's children's children's children, but I worry about their kids. Copyright isn't sufficiently long enough for that so I decided to produce no art at all instead, and become an engineer to produce trade secrets that can last indefinitely. We definitely need an extension to copyright to incentivize long-term planners like me to create more art. /s
  - tankenmate 5y ago
    I think the OP's post was made in the form of "100% de-hydrated desert dessicated sarcasm".
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > trade secrets that can last indefinitely and can also be invalidated immediately. AFAIK trade secret gets no formal protection outside secrecy.
EvanAnderson 5y ago
It's also galling that this recording was made under a copyright regime that granted substantially shorter federal copyright terms and required renewal to achieve the maximum term. Creators, at that time, knew "the deal" and accepted it. The intellectual commons has been (and is), literally, subject to "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." scenarios. That shouldn't have ever been acceptable. Since no "normie" has ever given a damn about copyright terms only those who were financially incented to care (read: holders of copyrights) got a say. They used their lobby to make the change happen.
- contravariant 5y ago
  Presumably we should look at all the good (?) Disney is doing with the money they've earned to truly appreciate why long dead artists should keep their copyright.
  - alliao 5y ago
    haven't you checked out their cruisers? they obviously need to do more to welcome the resurrection of walt disney the man himself in 2100. Preferably with world domination by then.
  - puppet-master 5y ago
    Pulling their ads briefly from YouTube a few years back certainly achieved some good
- razwall 5y ago
  What you say is mostly true, but in the case of sound recordings from before 1972, it's actually the opposite. At the time such recordings were made, they were subject to an infinite copyright term! The Music Modernization Act [1] passed in 2018 to put a finite life on those copyrights. As a result, all sound recordings from before 1923 become public domain this January. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act
  - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
exporectomy 5y ago
This argument that dead people's work shouldn't be protected because they can't be encouraged to make more is wrong, even where copyright gets extended afterwards. Predicting future value allows others to pay for it while they're alive, possibly by speculating on future enhanced copyright law. Corporations can persist beyond the life of any humans within them for a good reason. It enables longer term investment and decision making to achieve things that can't be done in a single lifespan. Why should human lifespan be some essential time limit on property rights? It also has the ethical problem that old or unhealthy people's work would be worth less than young healthy people's.
- EvanAnderson 5y ago
  There is as much validity to your argument as there is to the argument that copyright should terminate upon the death of the creator (or after a reasonable time) to enrich the public domain and allow others to freely build upon those public domain works to create new works of economic and cultural value. Neither scenario is testable. It ends up being a question of the kind of world you want to live in-- one where the estates of the dead lock up artifacts of culture and don't allow them to be used to create new works or one where new works based on older works can be more freely created. Have you seen "Wicked" (or read the novels upon which it is based, or listened to the soundtrack, or purchased branded merch)? Have you read "The Last Ringbearer"? One of those works exists commercially and as a broad cultural phenomenon because expiration of copyright allowed it to. The other won't see a commercial release until at least 2043 because the estate of a dead man says it can't. The success of Disney in "monetizing" and influencing culture with public domain stories makes me think there's significant validity in the argument of allowing old works to enter the public domain more quickly so they can be freely built-upon. It seems like both an economic and cultural good. "Wicked" has probably done a lot more business than the estate of L. Frank Baum was going to in the early 2000s using the "The Wizard of Oz" properties.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    That stuff is only culture because Disney/etc. paid to entice us to watch it. If people don't want their culture to be owned by someone else, they shouldn't rent it from someone else.

Presumably this will encourage the creator of the 1914 work to create new works.

soperj 5y ago

I personally have been waiting for new John McCormack material for a long long time.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jkonline 5y ago
See, by siding with just McCormick, though, you're absolutely missing out on all the great Schmick content. They're Collab albums, produced much later and (of course) in John's heyday, are amazing. Spicy, even.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Yeah. He'll sell his records, make his money. After a while he'll have to create more if he wants to earn more. It totally won't enable over a hundred years of rent seeking for him, descendants who could inherit his property after he's dead and of course the monopolistic copyright giants.

LeifCarrotson 5y ago
That's obviously facile. He's dead, and unable to make decisions anymore. I, on the other hand, am alive and would definitely have decided to become a world-renowned operatic singer, if only copyright wasn't so short that I couldn't pass on the rights to my artistic creations to my children's children's children's children's children's children's children. I could pass it on to my children's children's children's children's children's children, but I worry about their kids. Copyright isn't sufficiently long enough for that so I decided to produce no art at all instead, and become an engineer to produce trade secrets that can last indefinitely. We definitely need an extension to copyright to incentivize long-term planners like me to create more art. /s
- tankenmate 5y ago
  I think the OP's post was made in the form of "100% de-hydrated desert dessicated sarcasm".
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > trade secrets that can last indefinitely and can also be invalidated immediately. AFAIK trade secret gets no formal protection outside secrecy.

EvanAnderson 5y ago

It's also galling that this recording was made under a copyright regime that granted substantially shorter federal copyright terms and required renewal to achieve the maximum term. Creators, at that time, knew "the deal" and accepted it. The intellectual commons has been (and is), literally, subject to "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." scenarios. That shouldn't have ever been acceptable. Since no "normie" has ever given a damn about copyright terms only those who were financially incented to care (read: holders of copyrights) got a say. They used their lobby to make the change happen.

contravariant 5y ago
Presumably we should look at all the good (?) Disney is doing with the money they've earned to truly appreciate why long dead artists should keep their copyright.
- alliao 5y ago
  haven't you checked out their cruisers? they obviously need to do more to welcome the resurrection of walt disney the man himself in 2100. Preferably with world domination by then.
- puppet-master 5y ago
  Pulling their ads briefly from YouTube a few years back certainly achieved some good
razwall 5y ago
What you say is mostly true, but in the case of sound recordings from before 1972, it's actually the opposite. At the time such recordings were made, they were subject to an infinite copyright term! The Music Modernization Act [1] passed in 2018 to put a finite life on those copyrights. As a result, all sound recordings from before 1923 become public domain this January. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Modernization_Act
- 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

exporectomy 5y ago

This argument that dead people's work shouldn't be protected because they can't be encouraged to make more is wrong, even where copyright gets extended afterwards. Predicting future value allows others to pay for it while they're alive, possibly by speculating on future enhanced copyright law. Corporations can persist beyond the life of any humans within them for a good reason. It enables longer term investment and decision making to achieve things that can't be done in a single lifespan. Why should human lifespan be some essential time limit on property rights? It also has the ethical problem that old or unhealthy people's work would be worth less than young healthy people's.

EvanAnderson 5y ago
There is as much validity to your argument as there is to the argument that copyright should terminate upon the death of the creator (or after a reasonable time) to enrich the public domain and allow others to freely build upon those public domain works to create new works of economic and cultural value. Neither scenario is testable. It ends up being a question of the kind of world you want to live in-- one where the estates of the dead lock up artifacts of culture and don't allow them to be used to create new works or one where new works based on older works can be more freely created. Have you seen "Wicked" (or read the novels upon which it is based, or listened to the soundtrack, or purchased branded merch)? Have you read "The Last Ringbearer"? One of those works exists commercially and as a broad cultural phenomenon because expiration of copyright allowed it to. The other won't see a commercial release until at least 2043 because the estate of a dead man says it can't. The success of Disney in "monetizing" and influencing culture with public domain stories makes me think there's significant validity in the argument of allowing old works to enter the public domain more quickly so they can be freely built-upon. It seems like both an economic and cultural good. "Wicked" has probably done a lot more business than the estate of L. Frank Baum was going to in the early 2000s using the "The Wizard of Oz" properties.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  That stuff is only culture because Disney/etc. paid to entice us to watch it. If people don't want their culture to be owned by someone else, they shouldn't rent it from someone else.