5 ms·

yes, most things should be for the commons. it's unfortunate that we have so few reliable ways to monetize creative output that don't involve fabricated scarcit

yes, most things should be for the commons. it's unfortunate that we have so few reliable ways to monetize creative output that don't involve fabricated scarcity

tptacek 4y ago
I think it has something to do with creators needing to, like, eat and protect themselves from the rain.
- replygirl 4y ago
  yes, and its unfortunate that they have to fabricate scarcity to take care of themselves
- mopsi 4y ago
  Dead people are not known for their appetite, yet copyright lasts 70 years after death. It's particularly egregious when copyright to some of the most popular works of all time is inherited by people who had nothing to do with the author in his/her lifetime or had not even been born then: > The composer died unmarried and childless in 1937. His heir was his brother Edouard, who died in 1960, leaving the rights to his former masseuse, Jeanne Taverne, who died four years later. A tangled legal battle in following years saw the rights divided between a number of claimants, including Ms Taverne’s husband’s second wife Georgette. -- https://archive.ph/NOLb7 https://archive.ph/NOLb7
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I've never been able to understand how this is even a colorable argument, and yet it comes up all the time. Yes: the term of copyright lasts long after the death of the artist. But it's that term that gives value to the work in the first place; it's what enables artists to sell their work to distributors.
    - mopsi 4y ago
      It doesn't, because nobody knows what works have commercial value 70+ years into the future and thus current business is not conducted on that basis. That's how many popular works end up in random hands in the first place, like in the case of Ravel - they aren't seen as particularly valuable at the time, but become sleeper hits when they earn a special nostalgia or new technologies emerge (television, internet, etc). Good luck selling a movie to Warner Bros on the premise that it'll be a real money-maker in 2090s on telekinesis-vision platform.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        This argument requires me to believe that Warner Bros would see no difference in value between a property that becomes public the moment the author dies and a property that has 70 years of exclusivity after that point. Obviously, the difference in value between those two properties is immense, and that value is realized during the author's lifetime.
        mopsi 4y ago
        Only the first few years after publication matter, because that's when virtually all of lifetime revenue is earned. Revenue earned beyond that is usually not enough to even justify proper preservation, leaving huge archives to rot away.
      - greysphere 4y ago
        I can make you a list. Cinderella, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel, Game of Thrones... You could sell WB the 2090 rights to any one of these, except the ones that are going into the public domain (and those they already own of course). Look at that, the system is 'working'.
    - benj111 4y ago
      Do you buy anything based on what it may be worth 70 years after your death? Do you think any company thinks that long term? 1 year probably. 5 years pushing it. 10 years is basically off any reasonable financial projection any company is going to make.

yes, most things should be for the commons. it's unfortunate that we have so few reliable ways to monetize creative output that don't involve fabricated scarcity

tptacek 4y ago

I think it has something to do with creators needing to, like, eat and protect themselves from the rain.

replygirl 4y ago
yes, and its unfortunate that they have to fabricate scarcity to take care of themselves
mopsi 4y ago
Dead people are not known for their appetite, yet copyright lasts 70 years after death. It's particularly egregious when copyright to some of the most popular works of all time is inherited by people who had nothing to do with the author in his/her lifetime or had not even been born then: > The composer died unmarried and childless in 1937. His heir was his brother Edouard, who died in 1960, leaving the rights to his former masseuse, Jeanne Taverne, who died four years later. A tangled legal battle in following years saw the rights divided between a number of claimants, including Ms Taverne’s husband’s second wife Georgette. -- https://archive.ph/NOLb7 https://archive.ph/NOLb7
- tptacek 4y ago
  I've never been able to understand how this is even a colorable argument, and yet it comes up all the time. Yes: the term of copyright lasts long after the death of the artist. But it's that term that gives value to the work in the first place; it's what enables artists to sell their work to distributors.
  - mopsi 4y ago
    It doesn't, because nobody knows what works have commercial value 70+ years into the future and thus current business is not conducted on that basis. That's how many popular works end up in random hands in the first place, like in the case of Ravel - they aren't seen as particularly valuable at the time, but become sleeper hits when they earn a special nostalgia or new technologies emerge (television, internet, etc). Good luck selling a movie to Warner Bros on the premise that it'll be a real money-maker in 2090s on telekinesis-vision platform.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      This argument requires me to believe that Warner Bros would see no difference in value between a property that becomes public the moment the author dies and a property that has 70 years of exclusivity after that point. Obviously, the difference in value between those two properties is immense, and that value is realized during the author's lifetime.
      - mopsi 4y ago
        Only the first few years after publication matter, because that's when virtually all of lifetime revenue is earned. Revenue earned beyond that is usually not enough to even justify proper preservation, leaving huge archives to rot away.
    - greysphere 4y ago
      I can make you a list. Cinderella, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Marvel, Game of Thrones... You could sell WB the 2090 rights to any one of these, except the ones that are going into the public domain (and those they already own of course). Look at that, the system is 'working'.
  - benj111 4y ago
    Do you buy anything based on what it may be worth 70 years after your death? Do you think any company thinks that long term? 1 year probably. 5 years pushing it. 10 years is basically off any reasonable financial projection any company is going to make.