6 ms·

The stated purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works. As far as I know, the man is truly dead, and won't be creating new works anytime so

The stated purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works. As far as I know, the man is truly dead, and won't be creating new works anytime soon. And, frankly, society would probably be better off if there was less intergenerational wealth being passed on.

brailsafe 5y ago
Frankly society would be better off if the family of everyone's favourite comedian lost out on residual prosperity? Fuck that. Though most profit is made through various means of leeching money off of everyone else anyway, it would be good of the people making money off his content to share a reasonable cut with the family if they'd accept it.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  In this case though it is probable that more people will learn about Norm than would otherwise know and purchase things through official channels that would benefit the estate. I’m only saying this because multiple distant family members started binge watching Norm after his death due to fans like this. These people had no idea who he was prior. I.e. free advertising.
  - brailsafe 5y ago
    That's an agreement that's made by the participant though. I support fan efforts generally speaking to expand the reach of whatever artistic interest they have, but if someone is making money off it that changes things. If I was a photographer, and someone was using my photography without my permission and not paying me ostensibly because their free advertising is sufficient to pay my bills, I'd be pretty pissed. That said, my only argument is for their hypothetical right to be pissed, not necessarily that they should or are. I'd be even more pissed if someone made money off my work and subsequently made that argument, refusing to pay me because I should be grateful for the exposure.
hammock 5y ago
God forbid a father create IP that can feed his family long after he's dead. You need your head checked. I mean even giving your argument some credence, the man died before he hit retirement age.
- tarboreus 5y ago
  This is what we have life insurance for, not intellectual property.
  - tanseydavid 5y ago
    Conflating Intellectual Property rights and Life Insurance is not even logical.
  - hammock 5y ago
    If Norm had known he was going to die at 61 and that, according to your policy, nothing he ever created would be allowed to make money for his estate/his son's well-being after he died, do you think he would have behaved the same way during his life? Separate question, do you think it's OK to change the rules after someone dies and take away money they thought their estate/son/beneficiaries were going to get based on the rules at the time?

brailsafe 5y ago

Frankly society would be better off if the family of everyone's favourite comedian lost out on residual prosperity? Fuck that. Though most profit is made through various means of leeching money off of everyone else anyway, it would be good of the people making money off his content to share a reasonable cut with the family if they'd accept it.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
In this case though it is probable that more people will learn about Norm than would otherwise know and purchase things through official channels that would benefit the estate. I’m only saying this because multiple distant family members started binge watching Norm after his death due to fans like this. These people had no idea who he was prior. I.e. free advertising.
- brailsafe 5y ago
  That's an agreement that's made by the participant though. I support fan efforts generally speaking to expand the reach of whatever artistic interest they have, but if someone is making money off it that changes things. If I was a photographer, and someone was using my photography without my permission and not paying me ostensibly because their free advertising is sufficient to pay my bills, I'd be pretty pissed. That said, my only argument is for their hypothetical right to be pissed, not necessarily that they should or are. I'd be even more pissed if someone made money off my work and subsequently made that argument, refusing to pay me because I should be grateful for the exposure.

hammock 5y ago

God forbid a father create IP that can feed his family long after he's dead. You need your head checked. I mean even giving your argument some credence, the man died before he hit retirement age.

tarboreus 5y ago
This is what we have life insurance for, not intellectual property.
- tanseydavid 5y ago
  Conflating Intellectual Property rights and Life Insurance is not even logical.
- hammock 5y ago
  If Norm had known he was going to die at 61 and that, according to your policy, nothing he ever created would be allowed to make money for his estate/his son's well-being after he died, do you think he would have behaved the same way during his life? Separate question, do you think it's OK to change the rules after someone dies and take away money they thought their estate/son/beneficiaries were going to get based on the rules at the time?