4 ms·

I'm a firm believer that copyright and estate ownership should only extend to the direct descendant of the artist. No selling estates rights, no letting the gr

I'm a firm believer that copyright and estate ownership should only extend to the direct descendant of the artist. No selling estates rights, no letting the great grandkid coast on the ideas of their great grandfather. Copyright is to protect the artist, not landlords.

isitmadeofglass 3y ago
[dead]
mschuster91 3y ago
> Copyright is to protect the artist, not landlords. But... but Big Mouse!!! /s Personally, I'd cut the line even closer, for patents and all other forms of intellectual property with the exception of trademarks: 10 years should be more than enough to make back R&D / IP development cost. And no more "software patents" either, same for all kinds of patents without a concrete, working implementation. No more hoarding of ideas to stifle competition. And if you're not actively using or fairly licensing your patents for a year, instant revocation.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago
  I was trying to play the middle to make folks happy but in general I have zero respect for the industry of IP and really enjoy seeing what comes out of Chinese Shanzai culture. Rather than a handful of worse products protected by a copyright, the rapid pivoting by copying and improving has made a lot of cool tech. The nature of disrespecting copyrights also allows for niche products to be made for smaller consumer bases, compared to the focus group driven "jack of all trades master of none" products that you see when copyright is stronger. A few months back I was trying to reverse engineer a small Chinese bluetooth tx/rx device and found myself on the chinese side of the internet. I found many sites/blogs that only did teardowns of consumer devices, analyzing design choices, identifying and sharing datasheets normally kept behind NDAs, etc. These were datasheets of chinese origin mind you. The openness of information was refreshing because on the english internet, all I could find was press releases with pictures of young couples enjoying their individual bluetooth headphones. If you're a western engineer and want to make a bluetooth device, you're stuck with a handful of vendors who protect their IP to the extent it makes market research impossible. If you're a Chinese engineer, you've got a bunch of custom ready-to-go chips for various purposes. Yeah the range or quality wont be as good but design start to finish is far quicker.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Yeah the range or quality wont be as good but design start to finish is far quicker. The problem with this kind of China "gongkai" stuff is not just the quality but also sustainability. Fly-by-night operations that last a few months may produce innovative stuff indeed - but what value is it when you can't get spare parts or firmware fixes for security vulnerabilities? Or when you can't legally sell it anywhere in the developed world because no one has bothered with certifications? Or when shoddy li-ion batteries make it into the supply chain and suddenly it turns out a couple ten thousand units are effectively time bombs ticking to go off?
    - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
      Sure, I think those concerns are real, but also not a "stop the presses" issue. American firms aren't all that concerned with sustainability beyond donations that are tax deductible. No firm wants to seriously end planned obsolescence aside from some indie companies like framework. I don't need a firmware fix for a 10 dollar bt adapter I cut to bits and soldered leads to traces. Better polish eventually comes from these innovations anyway.
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        At least the EU is stepping up and actually mandating proper support durations for security firmware. And Apple's stuff at least is supported software-side for many years and, staingate/keyboardgate aside, the build quality is long-lasting as well.
- t-writescode 3y ago
  10 years is enough time for a company to screw over an author or other sort of artist by waiting. And people like to be current on movies (as visual productions are the medium of the day), so the company will still make plenty.
alphanullmeric 3y ago
Shouldn’t be protecting either. You don’t have the right to an idea.
dmix 3y ago
Governments enforcing intellectual property in the marketplace after death of the owner is pretty different than gov forcing their grandkids to sell their family home because grandpa bought it before he died and decided to leave it for his family.
phpisthebest 3y ago
I am a firm believer in a 14 year copyright, and 1 extension granted to the human owner for a total of 28 years. Corporations get only 14 years, and estates only get until the term in place at the time of death
- account42 3y ago
  I am a firm believer in 0 year copyright until I see extraordinary evidence that all this mess actually benefits society overall.
  - undersuit 3y ago
    What you don't think punishing me for copying the works of someone else is beneficial? /s I view copyright as an attack on free speech. Another individual is using the government to silence my expression. Doesn't matter if I'm selling or giving it away for free. I might not even get in trouble for violating the copyright of a written work, it could be the font I used.
- glerk 3y ago
  I’m a firm believer that copyright is 100% bullshit and nobody should get to own ideas.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    Would you feel the same if hypothetically it was 100% proven to stimulate innovation? Or do you think practical benefits are irrelevant?
arp242 3y ago
I don't think there's really anything wrong with selling rights or any of these things. When J. R. R. Tolkien sold the film rights in 1968 I think that was fair. The Tolkien estate selling the rights for US$250 million with all sorts of caveats about what they can and can't write about a few years ago? A bit less so. In short, the root of the problem is really the duration; the rest are just things that flow from that.

isitmadeofglass 3y ago

[dead]

mschuster91 3y ago

> Copyright is to protect the artist, not landlords. But... but Big Mouse!!! /s Personally, I'd cut the line even closer, for patents and all other forms of intellectual property with the exception of trademarks: 10 years should be more than enough to make back R&D / IP development cost. And no more "software patents" either, same for all kinds of patents without a concrete, working implementation. No more hoarding of ideas to stifle competition. And if you're not actively using or fairly licensing your patents for a year, instant revocation.

MSFT_Edging 3y ago
I was trying to play the middle to make folks happy but in general I have zero respect for the industry of IP and really enjoy seeing what comes out of Chinese Shanzai culture. Rather than a handful of worse products protected by a copyright, the rapid pivoting by copying and improving has made a lot of cool tech. The nature of disrespecting copyrights also allows for niche products to be made for smaller consumer bases, compared to the focus group driven "jack of all trades master of none" products that you see when copyright is stronger. A few months back I was trying to reverse engineer a small Chinese bluetooth tx/rx device and found myself on the chinese side of the internet. I found many sites/blogs that only did teardowns of consumer devices, analyzing design choices, identifying and sharing datasheets normally kept behind NDAs, etc. These were datasheets of chinese origin mind you. The openness of information was refreshing because on the english internet, all I could find was press releases with pictures of young couples enjoying their individual bluetooth headphones. If you're a western engineer and want to make a bluetooth device, you're stuck with a handful of vendors who protect their IP to the extent it makes market research impossible. If you're a Chinese engineer, you've got a bunch of custom ready-to-go chips for various purposes. Yeah the range or quality wont be as good but design start to finish is far quicker.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > Yeah the range or quality wont be as good but design start to finish is far quicker. The problem with this kind of China "gongkai" stuff is not just the quality but also sustainability. Fly-by-night operations that last a few months may produce innovative stuff indeed - but what value is it when you can't get spare parts or firmware fixes for security vulnerabilities? Or when you can't legally sell it anywhere in the developed world because no one has bothered with certifications? Or when shoddy li-ion batteries make it into the supply chain and suddenly it turns out a couple ten thousand units are effectively time bombs ticking to go off?
  - MSFT_Edging 3y ago
    Sure, I think those concerns are real, but also not a "stop the presses" issue. American firms aren't all that concerned with sustainability beyond donations that are tax deductible. No firm wants to seriously end planned obsolescence aside from some indie companies like framework. I don't need a firmware fix for a 10 dollar bt adapter I cut to bits and soldered leads to traces. Better polish eventually comes from these innovations anyway.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      At least the EU is stepping up and actually mandating proper support durations for security firmware. And Apple's stuff at least is supported software-side for many years and, staingate/keyboardgate aside, the build quality is long-lasting as well.
t-writescode 3y ago
10 years is enough time for a company to screw over an author or other sort of artist by waiting. And people like to be current on movies (as visual productions are the medium of the day), so the company will still make plenty.

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Shouldn’t be protecting either. You don’t have the right to an idea.

dmix 3y ago

Governments enforcing intellectual property in the marketplace after death of the owner is pretty different than gov forcing their grandkids to sell their family home because grandpa bought it before he died and decided to leave it for his family.

phpisthebest 3y ago

I am a firm believer in a 14 year copyright, and 1 extension granted to the human owner for a total of 28 years. Corporations get only 14 years, and estates only get until the term in place at the time of death

account42 3y ago
I am a firm believer in 0 year copyright until I see extraordinary evidence that all this mess actually benefits society overall.
- undersuit 3y ago
  What you don't think punishing me for copying the works of someone else is beneficial? /s I view copyright as an attack on free speech. Another individual is using the government to silence my expression. Doesn't matter if I'm selling or giving it away for free. I might not even get in trouble for violating the copyright of a written work, it could be the font I used.
glerk 3y ago
I’m a firm believer that copyright is 100% bullshit and nobody should get to own ideas.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Would you feel the same if hypothetically it was 100% proven to stimulate innovation? Or do you think practical benefits are irrelevant?

arp242 3y ago

I don't think there's really anything wrong with selling rights or any of these things. When J. R. R. Tolkien sold the film rights in 1968 I think that was fair. The Tolkien estate selling the rights for US$250 million with all sorts of caveats about what they can and can't write about a few years ago? A bit less so. In short, the root of the problem is really the duration; the rest are just things that flow from that.