4 ms·

How does it encourage public access? The artist is dead for 70 years when it becomes public domain >a lot of work would never be available to most people This

How does it encourage public access? The artist is dead for 70 years when it becomes public domain >a lot of work would never be available to most people This is the situation right now because of copyright.I don't see why it would be worse without

swsieber 3y ago
> The artist is dead for 70 years when it becomes public domain. > This is the situation right now [...] There are several argument getting mixed up right now: 1) No copyright is better than the current copyright system (your argument) 2) Some copyright is better than no copyright. (the argument you responded to) Point 1 does not negate point 2. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the best books I've read wouldn't have been produced except for copyright.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> This is the situation right now because of copyright.I don't see why it would be worse without Right now some artists can afford to dedicate a significant amount of their time to creating art, because they are compensated for it. If copyright did not exist, even the "starving artists" would have to spend more of their time and effort in non-creative jobs, and thus have less time and energy to create art.
modriano 3y ago
> How does it encourage public access? The artist is dead for 70 years when it becomes public domain How could an author afford to write if selling a single copy of their work gives the buyer the ability to legally copy the work and distribute it for free or for a lower price? Why would a publisher, say O'Reilly Media, pay an author to write a technical book if anyone could just drive the price of the book down to zero (or to the cost of distribution)? I pay $500/yr for 'Reilly Online because I get more than $500/yr worth of value from it, but if someone took all that content and distributed it as conveniently at a much lower price, I would probably stay with O'Reilly for a while, but as the price rose, the rate of new content decreased, and the reliability of the interactive services fell, I'd probably give up and switch to the content-thief platform until the content was too stale.
- account42 3y ago
  How could a plubmer afford to install a toilet if the buyer can legally take as many shits as he wants and invite others to do the same.
JohnFen 3y ago
The length of the copyright term is one of the things that I think is egregiously wrong and needs fixing. It's ridiculously long. So yes, I agree -- copyright law as it exists now is harmful and needs changing. But that doesn't mean that the concept of copyright is a bad one.

swsieber 3y ago

> The artist is dead for 70 years when it becomes public domain. > This is the situation right now [...] There are several argument getting mixed up right now: 1) No copyright is better than the current copyright system (your argument) 2) Some copyright is better than no copyright. (the argument you responded to) Point 1 does not negate point 2. I wouldn't be suprised if some of the best books I've read wouldn't have been produced except for copyright.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> This is the situation right now because of copyright.I don't see why it would be worse without Right now some artists can afford to dedicate a significant amount of their time to creating art, because they are compensated for it. If copyright did not exist, even the "starving artists" would have to spend more of their time and effort in non-creative jobs, and thus have less time and energy to create art.

modriano 3y ago

> How does it encourage public access? The artist is dead for 70 years when it becomes public domain How could an author afford to write if selling a single copy of their work gives the buyer the ability to legally copy the work and distribute it for free or for a lower price? Why would a publisher, say O'Reilly Media, pay an author to write a technical book if anyone could just drive the price of the book down to zero (or to the cost of distribution)? I pay $500/yr for 'Reilly Online because I get more than $500/yr worth of value from it, but if someone took all that content and distributed it as conveniently at a much lower price, I would probably stay with O'Reilly for a while, but as the price rose, the rate of new content decreased, and the reliability of the interactive services fell, I'd probably give up and switch to the content-thief platform until the content was too stale.

account42 3y ago
How could a plubmer afford to install a toilet if the buyer can legally take as many shits as he wants and invite others to do the same.

JohnFen 3y ago

The length of the copyright term is one of the things that I think is egregiously wrong and needs fixing. It's ridiculously long. So yes, I agree -- copyright law as it exists now is harmful and needs changing. But that doesn't mean that the concept of copyright is a bad one.