3 ms·

> I don't like these copyrights persisting forever just so that the extended family of the original creator can collect money for doing nothing. That's inherit

by GuB-42 5y ago

> I don't like these copyrights persisting forever just so that the extended family of the original creator can collect money for doing nothing. That's inheritance. If your father builds a house before he dies, you will inherit the house even though you did nothing, it won't become public property. If your father writes a book before he dies, you will inherit the copyrights even though you did nothing, it won't become public domain. You may not like the idea of inheritance, or long copyright terms, but extending copyright way past the original creator life is a logical conclusion when you combine the two.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Under your analogy patents and copyrights would last forever?
nybble41 5y ago
Property rights don't expire. Copyright does. These are very different systems based on fundamentally different principles. Reasoning about copyrights using analogies based on physical property such as houses is not particularly productive. If you want copyright to be something that can be inherited or otherwise gifted to someone else, a (short) fixed term like the original 28 year limit makes much more sense than anything based on the author's lifespan. There is no need to extent it "way past the original creator life". Most things that can potentially be inherited don't have longer lifetimes than their original owners. Even houses don't last forever. If they're still around they can be part of the estate; otherwise the heirs can inherit whatever is left of the invested earnings.
mbarbar 5y ago
>but extending copyright way past the original creator life is a logical conclusion when you combine the two. Not necessarily, unless you mean that copyright should always be able to be passed down should the holder wish. In your example, the father can double dip: write a (good enough) book, make money through sales (more guaranteed through state-enforced monopoly), buy a house with, maybe part of, that money, then have both the house and copyright inherited by the inheritors.

by GuB-42 5y ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Under your analogy patents and copyrights would last forever?

nybble41 5y ago

Property rights don't expire. Copyright does. These are very different systems based on fundamentally different principles. Reasoning about copyrights using analogies based on physical property such as houses is not particularly productive. If you want copyright to be something that can be inherited or otherwise gifted to someone else, a (short) fixed term like the original 28 year limit makes much more sense than anything based on the author's lifespan. There is no need to extent it "way past the original creator life". Most things that can potentially be inherited don't have longer lifetimes than their original owners. Even houses don't last forever. If they're still around they can be part of the estate; otherwise the heirs can inherit whatever is left of the invested earnings.

mbarbar 5y ago

>but extending copyright way past the original creator life is a logical conclusion when you combine the two. Not necessarily, unless you mean that copyright should always be able to be passed down should the holder wish. In your example, the father can double dip: write a (good enough) book, make money through sales (more guaranteed through state-enforced monopoly), buy a house with, maybe part of, that money, then have both the house and copyright inherited by the inheritors.