4 ms·

> When you publish something, 99% of the time are that you are going to make most of the profit in the first few years after release This is true of big-biz mo

by dahart 5y ago

> When you publish something, 99% of the time are that you are going to make most of the profit in the first few years after release This is true of big-biz movies, but not true of the many volumes of works by smaller creators, independent artists and smaller companies. Sometimes artists don’t enjoy success for decades, and then it happens long after their most influential work. And even when it is true, just because you make the “most” in the first year doesn’t mean the following years are inconsequential, right? The argument needs to be compelling as to why someone who wasn’t involved in the production of a work deserves to be able to take that income stream for themselves, and divert it away from the creator, without paying or creating anything themselves. I don’t hear that side of the argument.

KeepFlying 5y ago
If I published my own copy of a public domain work I'm not diverting the income stream away from the original creator's estate. Yes I'd be taking some income from it, but the descendants of the author are equally able to do the same. Framing it as of I'd be totally diverting income from the creator is disingenuous. Besides, I'd still be providing value by taking the time to publish the work and provide it to customers.
- dahart 5y ago
  I wasn’t talking about taking copies from the public domain, it is you who’s being disingenuous. If I’m alive and I make something people pay for, why should you ever have the right to make and distribute copies of my work without paying me for it? Turn the “me” and “you” around and assume you created the work, and tell me why I should be able to profit from your work, how that is “providing value”?
vlunkr 5y ago
> Sometimes artists don’t enjoy success for decades, and then it happens long after their most influential work. I know there are notable examples of this, but they are notable because it's incredibly rare.
- dahart 5y ago
  No it’s not. It frequently takes a long time for something unknown to get popular. There are thousands upon thousands of albums and artworks and books that didn’t get popular until a decade or two after they were made. Another example you might not be thinking of is software startups take 10 years to get going all the time, and their entire codebase is protected by copyright. That said, I’m still not hearing a particularly compelling reason why copyrights should revert. Regardless of how long it takes for something to get popular, why should your protections expire such that it becomes legal for me to wholesale copy something you made, and turn around and sell it as if it were mine?
  - zuminator 5y ago
    You're talking about inventors laboring a decade or two in obscurity. Not 95 years. By that time the money's been rolling in for three-quarters of a century, perhaps to the grandchildren, never having worked a day in their lives while others toil away for their benefit, simply because of a distant accident of birth. That's the cost of generational wealth. It persists because, by the rules of the money game, the current generation of workers is enslaved by the debt of wealth created in the past. Having said that, I do agree it's unrealistic to assume that that truly democratic institutions would abolish long copyrights. I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away, one hit song away, one TikTok meme away, from being wealthy creators. The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them.
    - dahart 5y ago
      I have mentioned above I’m in favor of shortening copyrights. I have my reasons, but I’m also asking to hear more compelling and clearly stated reasons than “I want free stuff” or “it’d be better for everyone if things were free” or “it should be free because big media is already rich”. > I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away […] The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them. I wouldn’t be quite so glib. The history of copyright, and the state of the debate today, is far more interesting than your assumptions here. First of all, the driving force behind updates to the copyright law in recent years is big business, not TikTok memers. Second, the economic sectors of Information (based on copyright protected code), and of Media and Entertainment (based on copyright protected artwork), are larger than utilities, construction, education, and corporate management combined, for example. This is a large and core part to our economy and not something that is primarily being discussed because of a few artists with little more than hopes and dollar signs in their eyes.

by dahart 5y ago

KeepFlying 5y ago

If I published my own copy of a public domain work I'm not diverting the income stream away from the original creator's estate. Yes I'd be taking some income from it, but the descendants of the author are equally able to do the same. Framing it as of I'd be totally diverting income from the creator is disingenuous. Besides, I'd still be providing value by taking the time to publish the work and provide it to customers.

dahart 5y ago
I wasn’t talking about taking copies from the public domain, it is you who’s being disingenuous. If I’m alive and I make something people pay for, why should you ever have the right to make and distribute copies of my work without paying me for it? Turn the “me” and “you” around and assume you created the work, and tell me why I should be able to profit from your work, how that is “providing value”?

vlunkr 5y ago

> Sometimes artists don’t enjoy success for decades, and then it happens long after their most influential work. I know there are notable examples of this, but they are notable because it's incredibly rare.

dahart 5y ago
No it’s not. It frequently takes a long time for something unknown to get popular. There are thousands upon thousands of albums and artworks and books that didn’t get popular until a decade or two after they were made. Another example you might not be thinking of is software startups take 10 years to get going all the time, and their entire codebase is protected by copyright. That said, I’m still not hearing a particularly compelling reason why copyrights should revert. Regardless of how long it takes for something to get popular, why should your protections expire such that it becomes legal for me to wholesale copy something you made, and turn around and sell it as if it were mine?
- zuminator 5y ago
  You're talking about inventors laboring a decade or two in obscurity. Not 95 years. By that time the money's been rolling in for three-quarters of a century, perhaps to the grandchildren, never having worked a day in their lives while others toil away for their benefit, simply because of a distant accident of birth. That's the cost of generational wealth. It persists because, by the rules of the money game, the current generation of workers is enslaved by the debt of wealth created in the past. Having said that, I do agree it's unrealistic to assume that that truly democratic institutions would abolish long copyrights. I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away, one hit song away, one TikTok meme away, from being wealthy creators. The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them.
  - dahart 5y ago
    I have mentioned above I’m in favor of shortening copyrights. I have my reasons, but I’m also asking to hear more compelling and clearly stated reasons than “I want free stuff” or “it’d be better for everyone if things were free” or “it should be free because big media is already rich”. > I think that the majority of people who are invested in this issue imagine that they are just one bestselling book away […] The idea that someone else might re-upload and unfairly profit from their own habanero sauce snorting video, that they worked so hard to perfect, is anathema to them. I wouldn’t be quite so glib. The history of copyright, and the state of the debate today, is far more interesting than your assumptions here. First of all, the driving force behind updates to the copyright law in recent years is big business, not TikTok memers. Second, the economic sectors of Information (based on copyright protected code), and of Media and Entertainment (based on copyright protected artwork), are larger than utilities, construction, education, and corporate management combined, for example. This is a large and core part to our economy and not something that is primarily being discussed because of a few artists with little more than hopes and dollar signs in their eyes.