4 ms·

so.... no intergenerational wealth transfer then? if estates can't pass on intellectual property, then why should they be allowed to pass on physical property?

• anothernewdude 3y ago
  It's almost like Intellectual property is some kind of made up thing that isn't really property, and people can make a distinction between actual property and IP. Weird, huh?
• everforward 3y ago
  It's in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" The question is does the heritability of IP promote the progress of science and useful arts, or does it simply enrich heirs? I can see the argument that people wouldn't create art or do science if they couldn't profit from it, but it's much greyer whether they wouldn't do it if they couldn't pass it to their heirs.
  • qzw 3y ago
    It seems that any language stating intentions in the Constitution has only as much relevance to real laws as the relative strength of the lobbyists arguing for/against the provision in question, e.g. "A well regulated militia..."
  • jrajav 3y ago
    I'm not an expert on the science part, but as far as the arts are concerned, IP being inheritable not only does not promote progress, it actively harms it. See: The Marvin Gaye estate and the damage they wreak on the music industry by thrashing about every few years with another cash grab lawsuit based on hamfisted and incompetent explanations of music theory.
    • chrismcb 3y ago
      I don't think that is a very good example of active harm due to inheritance. Marvin gaye could have done the exact same thing if he was still alive.
      • mr_toad 3y ago
        Marvin Gaye was making music, which is to be encouraged. His estate makes nothing.
  • mold_aid 3y ago
    >or does it simply enrich heirs? This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in favor of copyright: When, in 1749, Thomas Newton's (1704-1782) edition of Paradise Lost was published, it carried details about the impoverished circumstances in which Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, lived.[33] The account gave rise to a performance of Milton's Comus at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from which Elizabeth received £130, the profits of the evening. When aligned with the fact that Milton himself received only £20 from Simmons, the tale became a staple in subsequent accounts of neglected genius and avaricious publishers. Deazley, R. (2008) ‘Commentary on Milton's Contract 1667', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
  • svachalek 3y ago
    I don't think it's grey at all, what other productive effort do people only do on the grounds that it will enrich their heirs? Maybe that's what it takes to encourage knocking off a king, if that's something you want to encourage, but I can hardly think of anything else. Still that cuts in both directions, in that you could use it to argue that other properties don't necessarily need to be heritable. Either way it's pretty clear the "limited times" they were imagining were a portion of a lifespan, not multiple lifespans. It's pretty ridiculous that as the world moves faster these durations are increasing rather than decreasing.
  • Rexxar 3y ago
    Could someone argue that transferability of copyright is not constitutional because it's not explicitly authorized by constitution ? The exclusive right is explicitly given to authors and inventors, not to other people.
    • chrismcb 3y ago
      I don't think you can argue that at all. The point is to promote the science and arts. Being and to transfer ownership makes it easier to promote the individual artists and inventor. Also how do you deal with large projects that have the efforts of a lot of people?
• maclockard 3y ago
  FWIW I'm not sure analogies between intellectual property and actual property really work, since they are pretty fundamentally different if you compare the specifics.
• moomoo11 3y ago
  I’m against it until I’m in that situation myself. And if I am I’m probably not passing on all my wealth to my family besides a really healthy trust.. because if they can’t manage to stand on their two feet and make hella gains with a few million dollars they are losers imo. I personally started with $0 and have managed to do well enough for myself thus far as a swe and pursuing some business ideas. I know people who can’t do shit with millions. Rather have the money go to St Jude or some other charity.
  • graderjs 3y ago
    That's a horrible opinion to have of your family. Do you really have kids and a spouse? Why do you get to "judge" what they "do" with it? They're your family. They can live beyond your dreams of what's possible, you can't proscribe or foresee what they can do. You should want to support them, and make their life easy, and pass on your gains were you to die, right? How can you think giving it to some random charity is better than passing it to your own blood? That's a poverty of family love, to me.
    • jrajav 3y ago
      Did you miss the "with a few million dollars" part? That's more than enough money to be comfortable for your entire life, several lives really, plus enough capital to start any kind of business your passion leads you to. I truly don't think the viewpoint GP expressed is incompatible with familial love and setting up a great life for your children.
      • graderjs 3y ago
        I did miss that as being significant but did read it: yet based on the attitude displayed, it's not entirely clear that's in the cards. It seems the commenter is more talking about her/his idea of a "principle" whereby we can "judge a person's value (and eligibility to inherit from the commenter)" by what they have done / would do with such money. This person seems to suggest they themselves have high value in that regard, and seems to suggest their family does not. To me, it wasn't clear the commenter intends to leave them "a few million" as you seem to suggest.
• Leo_Germond 3y ago
  As you said, you can pass physical property, why would you need that to be extended to other area on top of it ? I mean you would think that inheriting the actual capital generated by the art pieces, on top of the unsold original pieces, would be enough as far as money goes (moral right is different, I see why you would want to inherit that). It's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that...
  • bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    >it's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that yeah but it's less of a bit that than it is a bit that your parents owned physical property and intellectual property and when they died you inherit the physical property so why not the intellectual property.