4 ms·

An artist's interests disappear after their family is reasonably compensated after they die, in many cases. While I completely disagree with "Life of author +

An artist's interests disappear after their family is reasonably compensated after they die, in many cases. While I completely disagree with "Life of author + 70 years", I'm very much a fan of 20 + 20 and other platforms, where things are protected for, for example, 20 years and then if the author is still alive, or recently passed, they get another 20 for their lineage. Imagine an author finishes a book as their way of securing their family's future.

amrocha 3y ago
Why do artists families deserve that kind of compensation compared to everyone else? What makes them so special that they can't just just use a pension or investments like everyone else?
- t-writescode 3y ago
  A book is not like a statue with one large patron; or a piece of software they were commissioned, in the past, to write and have no promise of gain in the future. A book is written for hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of tiny, future patrons. Further "starving artist" isn't just a trope. An author probably wasn't being paid for a given book for the months or years until the book was produced. It was made on a promise that some day it would be paid back. That's what makes it different.
  - croes 3y ago
    >or a piece of software they were commissioned What about software that wasn't commissioned? Many programmers are kind of an artist too. All what you mentioned is also valid for a programmer writing a game or application.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      Sure is! I would say their work should be protected the same way. When I was mentioning the programmer above, I was definitely not clear. I should have been more clear. The difference I was trying to portray is that artist work tends to come in two forms: * pay ahead of time * pay in the future I was speaking mostly of the contract workers that work for another company and could be fired "tomorrow" and never see another penny - their pennies were earned in their salaries. Artistic work regularly comes in the "pay in the future" form. We see that all the time with books, songs and yes, indie game or other software developers working on passion projects. Having copyright immediately end at death harms the desires for those creators to do work, especially later in their lives, where they personally won't reap the benefits of it; but, their children could. "Plant a tree for your grandkids to swing in" and all that. But yes, you are entirely correct with regards to developers working on passion projects.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    I still don't get it. Why should they profit off the work of someone else? The author is dead, they don't need to sustain themselves. Their family are adults and can sustain themselves. If they can't, then that's why the author invested and got a pension or life insurance for. One extra book at the end wouldn't make a difference. Unless, of course, the author is very successful and wealthy and their family isn't concerned with survival, just with profits.
    - t-writescode 3y ago
      Because collectively, as a society, for a long, long time and a long time ago too, we've thought that they should profit off that work; and, in general, the consensus is that they should.
      - amrocha 3y ago
        That's not really a reason, and it's not even true. Some people a long time ago decided that. "We" didn't decide that, and certainly not collectively. I don't think the popular consensus is that copyright is good either.
    - therealdrag0 3y ago
      Why are their family adults?
      - amrocha 3y ago
        Because the implication in this thread is an author dying of old age, therefore their kids should already be adults
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  Why do children deserve to receive support from the work of their parents? I don't know.
  - SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
    That is what pension or life insurance is for. The whole concept that copyright should be for the life of the author (or even life plus) came as a shoe in for pensions from a time where pensions weren't a thing.
  - amrocha 3y ago
    Personally I don't think they should after they're adults. You gotta contribute to society to earn your keep
arp242 3y ago
I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean with "20 + 20". What is the difference with a fixed copyright duration of 20 years (which would be passed on to the estate if the original author(s) pass away during the 20 years)?
- t-writescode 3y ago
  "20 + 20" is really a 40 year copyright with an early release if the artist passes away, basically. I am probably misremembering. I think the US was originally 14 + 14, which is really 28 with a quick release in case of early death, etc. I'm also amiable to a 20 + (exponentially increasing yearly price to maintain copyright manually) pattern. Actually, that's probably my favorite form. Then Disney can retain their copyrights .... by paying a _whole lot of money_ and stop all the harm they've caused society at large by extending copyright duration far beyond anything reasonable.
  - arp242 3y ago
    Ah, right. I'm not sure why death of the author should really be a factor; why not just a fixed period, whether that's 20 years, 40 years, or something else? I don't like "20+ increasing yearly price to maintain copyright"; the basic idea behind copyright is that authors or their estate will be able to make a living from their creative works. I'm not opposed to people or corporations make truckloads of money if their work is successful, but under this scheme the more successful your work is, the longer you'll be able to afford renewal fees and the more money you will be able to make off it. An author who made a slightly successful work that still rakes in some money after 20 years (say, €50/month) won't be able to afford the renewal fees, but if something is wildly successful (say, Harry Potter) then they'll be able to afford the renewal fees for a lot longer. The more successful a work is, the more it's part of our culture. Things like Star Trek or Harry Potter are just as much part of our culture as the Homeric stories were part of Greek culture, or Shakespeare is part of English culture. As far as I'm concerned the biggest reason why we should limit copyright at all is that culture belongs to everybody and that everyone should be able to contribute to that in their own way.

amrocha 3y ago

Why do artists families deserve that kind of compensation compared to everyone else? What makes them so special that they can't just just use a pension or investments like everyone else?

t-writescode 3y ago
A book is not like a statue with one large patron; or a piece of software they were commissioned, in the past, to write and have no promise of gain in the future. A book is written for hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of tiny, future patrons. Further "starving artist" isn't just a trope. An author probably wasn't being paid for a given book for the months or years until the book was produced. It was made on a promise that some day it would be paid back. That's what makes it different.
- croes 3y ago
  >or a piece of software they were commissioned What about software that wasn't commissioned? Many programmers are kind of an artist too. All what you mentioned is also valid for a programmer writing a game or application.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    Sure is! I would say their work should be protected the same way. When I was mentioning the programmer above, I was definitely not clear. I should have been more clear. The difference I was trying to portray is that artist work tends to come in two forms: * pay ahead of time * pay in the future I was speaking mostly of the contract workers that work for another company and could be fired "tomorrow" and never see another penny - their pennies were earned in their salaries. Artistic work regularly comes in the "pay in the future" form. We see that all the time with books, songs and yes, indie game or other software developers working on passion projects. Having copyright immediately end at death harms the desires for those creators to do work, especially later in their lives, where they personally won't reap the benefits of it; but, their children could. "Plant a tree for your grandkids to swing in" and all that. But yes, you are entirely correct with regards to developers working on passion projects.
- amrocha 3y ago
  I still don't get it. Why should they profit off the work of someone else? The author is dead, they don't need to sustain themselves. Their family are adults and can sustain themselves. If they can't, then that's why the author invested and got a pension or life insurance for. One extra book at the end wouldn't make a difference. Unless, of course, the author is very successful and wealthy and their family isn't concerned with survival, just with profits.
  - t-writescode 3y ago
    Because collectively, as a society, for a long, long time and a long time ago too, we've thought that they should profit off that work; and, in general, the consensus is that they should.
    - amrocha 3y ago
      That's not really a reason, and it's not even true. Some people a long time ago decided that. "We" didn't decide that, and certainly not collectively. I don't think the popular consensus is that copyright is good either.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    Why are their family adults?
    - amrocha 3y ago
      Because the implication in this thread is an author dying of old age, therefore their kids should already be adults
xboxnolifes 3y ago
Why do children deserve to receive support from the work of their parents? I don't know.
- SkeuomorphicBee 3y ago
  That is what pension or life insurance is for. The whole concept that copyright should be for the life of the author (or even life plus) came as a shoe in for pensions from a time where pensions weren't a thing.
- amrocha 3y ago
  Personally I don't think they should after they're adults. You gotta contribute to society to earn your keep

arp242 3y ago

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean with "20 + 20". What is the difference with a fixed copyright duration of 20 years (which would be passed on to the estate if the original author(s) pass away during the 20 years)?

t-writescode 3y ago
"20 + 20" is really a 40 year copyright with an early release if the artist passes away, basically. I am probably misremembering. I think the US was originally 14 + 14, which is really 28 with a quick release in case of early death, etc. I'm also amiable to a 20 + (exponentially increasing yearly price to maintain copyright manually) pattern. Actually, that's probably my favorite form. Then Disney can retain their copyrights .... by paying a _whole lot of money_ and stop all the harm they've caused society at large by extending copyright duration far beyond anything reasonable.
- arp242 3y ago
  Ah, right. I'm not sure why death of the author should really be a factor; why not just a fixed period, whether that's 20 years, 40 years, or something else? I don't like "20+ increasing yearly price to maintain copyright"; the basic idea behind copyright is that authors or their estate will be able to make a living from their creative works. I'm not opposed to people or corporations make truckloads of money if their work is successful, but under this scheme the more successful your work is, the longer you'll be able to afford renewal fees and the more money you will be able to make off it. An author who made a slightly successful work that still rakes in some money after 20 years (say, €50/month) won't be able to afford the renewal fees, but if something is wildly successful (say, Harry Potter) then they'll be able to afford the renewal fees for a lot longer. The more successful a work is, the more it's part of our culture. Things like Star Trek or Harry Potter are just as much part of our culture as the Homeric stories were part of Greek culture, or Shakespeare is part of English culture. As far as I'm concerned the biggest reason why we should limit copyright at all is that culture belongs to everybody and that everyone should be able to contribute to that in their own way.