4 ms·

As someone who makes decent income via royalties from my copyrighted work, I object to this proposal. Purely from a record keeping perspective, the additional

As someone who makes decent income via royalties from my copyrighted work, I object to this proposal. Purely from a record keeping perspective, the additional work required for my small business would add a considerable burden. And my accountant would probably have to do the math - thus costing me even more in fees. Large corporations like Disney and MCI are not the only entities who use copyright to protect property and income. A single creator like myself (been in the photo biz for 32 years now) can make a living in this realm. Yet I fight to defend my copyright every year from infringement and misuse. It is difficult and exhausting enough without additional burden. Just in the past few years a new breed of lawyers has been cultivating the business of pursuing infringement. I’ll be honest, my income has been boosted from the frequent settlements from the lawyers that now represent my work. I’m amazed how many deep pocket companies expect to use (my) content for free without much worry. My work is incredibly expensive and difficult to produce. Honestly it feels like sweet justice to make them pay. Creative Commons exists for those that want more liberal copy sharing. Copyright does not need “fixing” from my perspective.

phicoh 5y ago
Copyright is something that is granted by the general public because as a whole everybody benefits from new works. This has been subverted in Europe, in that artists are entitled to have control over their works in ways other people don't. For example, an engineer has no control over an object after it has been sold. Nor do the heirs of an engineer get royalties if an object becomes rare an later gets sold for a lot of money. Currently, too many works are effectively lost because it is unclear who has the copyright, or the rights are spread over too many people that effective negotiation of a new contract is impossible. There are also plenty of works that people consider part of their culture, where the rights are held privately. Famous cases in Europe are the Atomium in Belgium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium) or the Little Mermade in Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(statue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(statue)) The most simple way to fix the current system to limit copyright terms to 20 years. There is no need for a copyright system where the heirs of a artist makes more money than the artist themselves. And as a business, if to can't make a good return on an investment within 20 years, then it is time to do something else.
necovek 5y ago
Copyright is there to incentivise people to create more. If you can sustain yourself from royalties from, say, works you created 20 years ago, copyright has failed us (you included, even if it provides you financial stability, because it's not encouraging you to be your best self and create more great works!). While you do raise some interesting points about financial aspects of the situation today ("deep pocket companies expect to use... for free"), I think they are rather symptoms of the current system. Many companies are deep-pocketed _because_ of the copyright system like it is today. But if you were able to more easily reuse work of others to build on, which would benefit civilisation as a whole, wouldn't that bring the costs and difficulty of your work down as well? The benchmark should be how LITTLE protection we can give to creators for them to continue to create! Sure, you've invested in yourself and your business with the rules as they are, but that should not stop us from thinking of what the rules should be for betterment of human kind.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
Copyright needs fixing so that heirs cannot grift off the hard work of those who actually had creative ideas.
- labawi 5y ago
  I don't think heirs getting money is a significant issue. It's the restrictions on use of said intellectual products and the persecution of those that use said work by our common powers i.e. states/police. Freeloading heirs get inheritance in many ways, mostly real-estate and companies I think. Society stratified into feudal classes is a big issue, but I don't think we have many examples from authorship (for now). I don't mind and I think society shouldn't mind other people freeloading or probably even having resources - it's a sign of envy and destructive. It's only when those who have affect those who don't through scarcity or influence that I have issues.

phicoh 5y ago

Copyright is something that is granted by the general public because as a whole everybody benefits from new works. This has been subverted in Europe, in that artists are entitled to have control over their works in ways other people don't. For example, an engineer has no control over an object after it has been sold. Nor do the heirs of an engineer get royalties if an object becomes rare an later gets sold for a lot of money. Currently, too many works are effectively lost because it is unclear who has the copyright, or the rights are spread over too many people that effective negotiation of a new contract is impossible. There are also plenty of works that people consider part of their culture, where the rights are held privately. Famous cases in Europe are the Atomium in Belgium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomium) or the Little Mermade in Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(statue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid_(statue)) The most simple way to fix the current system to limit copyright terms to 20 years. There is no need for a copyright system where the heirs of a artist makes more money than the artist themselves. And as a business, if to can't make a good return on an investment within 20 years, then it is time to do something else.

necovek 5y ago

Copyright is there to incentivise people to create more. If you can sustain yourself from royalties from, say, works you created 20 years ago, copyright has failed us (you included, even if it provides you financial stability, because it's not encouraging you to be your best self and create more great works!). While you do raise some interesting points about financial aspects of the situation today ("deep pocket companies expect to use... for free"), I think they are rather symptoms of the current system. Many companies are deep-pocketed _because_ of the copyright system like it is today. But if you were able to more easily reuse work of others to build on, which would benefit civilisation as a whole, wouldn't that bring the costs and difficulty of your work down as well? The benchmark should be how LITTLE protection we can give to creators for them to continue to create! Sure, you've invested in yourself and your business with the rules as they are, but that should not stop us from thinking of what the rules should be for betterment of human kind.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

labawi 5y ago
I don't think heirs getting money is a significant issue. It's the restrictions on use of said intellectual products and the persecution of those that use said work by our common powers i.e. states/police. Freeloading heirs get inheritance in many ways, mostly real-estate and companies I think. Society stratified into feudal classes is a big issue, but I don't think we have many examples from authorship (for now). I don't mind and I think society shouldn't mind other people freeloading or probably even having resources - it's a sign of envy and destructive. It's only when those who have affect those who don't through scarcity or influence that I have issues.