3 ms·

I disagree. If copyright exists, its term shouldn't be tied to anyone's life at all. Let's say I produce a copyrighted work, and immediately sell the rights to

I disagree. If copyright exists, its term shouldn't be tied to anyone's life at all. Let's say I produce a copyrighted work, and immediately sell the rights to that work to you. Why should the value of your purchase depend on how long I live? Should the work produced by a 20 year old be more valuable than the work produced by a 70 year old because the 20 year old is less likely to drop dead and end their work's copyright?

mindcrime 4y ago
Maybe we should disallow selling / transfer of copyright rights then? Dunno, just spitballing ideas here.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  Why not a flat duration? Why tie it to life of author in the first place - what's the benefit?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ddingus 4y ago
Originally, a short term answered all these questions. Remember, Disney happened because the works of the Brothers Grimm fell into what was a robust body of creative works to build on. Then Disney did not want to give in like kind as they received and we have seen extensions to copyright continue into what are now ridiculous lengths of time. Originally, the reasoning was to create an incentive for creators to create. It was not intended to be rent seeking. Creators were expected to continue to create and have a body of robust works to create with. Doing it that way advanced culture and made fortunes. We were all better for it. Today, it is not so good for all of us. Culture is less rich, less vibrant. And when I look at the likes of Disney, they own a lot, buying more all the time. When exactly do they return the free gift worth so much so others may create more? Fact is future Disney could buy those works same as they do today and find their own old works made new, valuable and worth more than returning them to the public may appear to cost.
hulitu 4y ago
I agree. Just like nuclear waste, the copyright shall last forever.

mindcrime 4y ago

Maybe we should disallow selling / transfer of copyright rights then? Dunno, just spitballing ideas here.

car_analogy 4y ago
Why not a flat duration? Why tie it to life of author in the first place - what's the benefit?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ddingus 4y ago

Originally, a short term answered all these questions. Remember, Disney happened because the works of the Brothers Grimm fell into what was a robust body of creative works to build on. Then Disney did not want to give in like kind as they received and we have seen extensions to copyright continue into what are now ridiculous lengths of time. Originally, the reasoning was to create an incentive for creators to create. It was not intended to be rent seeking. Creators were expected to continue to create and have a body of robust works to create with. Doing it that way advanced culture and made fortunes. We were all better for it. Today, it is not so good for all of us. Culture is less rich, less vibrant. And when I look at the likes of Disney, they own a lot, buying more all the time. When exactly do they return the free gift worth so much so others may create more? Fact is future Disney could buy those works same as they do today and find their own old works made new, valuable and worth more than returning them to the public may appear to cost.

hulitu 4y ago

I agree. Just like nuclear waste, the copyright shall last forever.