4 ms·
The idea that someone's "estate" can exist for decades after your death is sickening. All copyrights should end with the death of the creator. Descendants shoul
by purpleblue 4y ago
The idea that someone's "estate" can exist for decades after your death is sickening. All copyrights should end with the death of the creator. Descendants should have no right to feed off the works of an artist in perpetuity. It's the ultimate in rent-seeking pigs feeding at the trough.
- sourcecodeplz 4y agoWhat if those descendants helped and supported the author? What if that help and support went on for many years while the author was working on his "masterpiece"? What if that masterpiece was released just years before his death? How can people be so nihilists about this?
- louhike 4y agoAnd what if they didn't? What if the persons who supported them were not from their family? Furthermore, have you look at the release dates in the article? It was almost 100 years ago. The article give an example of the Arthur Conan Doyle estate which sued Netflix two years ago.
- sourcecodeplz 4y agoYes, I've read the article. > And what if they didn't? If they didn't, or didn't get along then it's possible the author could have left the rights of his estate to someone else. If there is no will, things go by default to family.
- purpleblue 4y agoThere should be no rights to give after you die. Copyright should die along with the author.
- mhuffman 4y ago>How can people be so nihilists about this? The intent of copyright was never to be a never-ending "golden goose"! It was to give a very limited sole ability to monetize something in exchange for moving the arts and sciences forward. Generational wealth was never a consideration. Nor was how helpful other people were to the enterprise. It is amazing that the perception (and reality thanks to unlimited money from mega-corps) has changed to be something that someone "owns" and is "owed". It isn't and never was. It was only ever meant to be an encourangment for the good of society not for the individual.
- purpleblue 4y agoWho cares? That's their problem. Sometimes people invest money that loses them money. That's life.
- traverseda 4y agoHow would that work with software, or other collaboratively developed corporate owned works? If a windows kernel developer dies do those lines of source code become public domain?
- Minor49er 4y agoThose are the works of the company, not the property of the developer who was hired to write the code
- traverseda 4y agoRight, so it sounds like we've just added the separate step of transferring copyright to a company if you want to own it past the authors death...
- Minor49er 4y agoThe copyright that the company already owns?
- adrianmonk 4y agoWhat if the copyright holder dies young? Suppose you're a software freelancer, you're 35, you have two young kids, you've spent the last 15 years working very hard writing software, and you're able to support yourself with annual license fees from some businesses. If you decide to just watch TV for the rest of your life, your hard work will continue to pay off, and your kids will be provided for. But if you get hit by a bus one day and killed, your one valuable asset instantly becomes worthless, and your kids aren't provided for.
- purpleblue 4y agoSometimes, things don't work out. I joined a FAANG last year, and my stock is down over 50%. My children won't be provided for a well as they could have had I made a better choice. Who should I complain to?
- adrianmonk 4y agoIt's not about complaining. The goal of copyright is to create an incentive. Leaving uncertainty in there, when you could easily write the rules to eliminate it, makes the incentive less valuable and undermines the original purpose.