5 ms·

That is only because copyright is too long. Of course copyright should survive the creator. But not for 95 years(or even 75)

Pxtl 3y ago
One big problem is that some things are a flat year number and others are N years past the death of the author, and it feels like the priorities are reversed. Like in music the composition has the longer copyright than the recording, so fun derivative works like cover songs are more protected than just selling somebody else's album.
realusername 3y ago
> Of course copyright should survive the creator. Why "of course"? What purpose does it serve after the creator is dead? Copyright is a temporary monopoly for the creator to be able to profit from their creation, when they are dead, there's no point to it anymore.
- Freak_NL 3y ago
  In a broader sense, having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works rather than a different source of income where assets accrued can benefit them. In particular in cases where your spouse and children are dependant on your income. That it should be restricted by a lot is obvious by now of course. Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case.
  - realusername 3y ago
    > , having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works I'd argue the exact opposite, that reduce the incentive to produce new work, why creating new work when you can profit from old ones you haven't put any effort into it? > Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case. That could be a good argument for it yes, I haven't thought about the external pressure.
- bmitc 3y ago
  The vast majority of artists struggle to make even a living wage. Many successful artists only become financially so late in life, if ever, and were often in extreme poverty until that happened. Cormac McCarthy is a good example. Is it really fair to their estate to cease all protection of their works just because they died? Is Apple going to relinquish control over patents and the products they protect when their inventors die?
- jjk166 3y ago
  Most people care about leaving something of value for their descendants. This includes both financial resources and a proud legacy. Indeed, especially late in life, this might be more of a motivator than the limited personal benefit they might derive.

Pxtl 3y ago

One big problem is that some things are a flat year number and others are N years past the death of the author, and it feels like the priorities are reversed. Like in music the composition has the longer copyright than the recording, so fun derivative works like cover songs are more protected than just selling somebody else's album.

realusername 3y ago

> Of course copyright should survive the creator. Why "of course"? What purpose does it serve after the creator is dead? Copyright is a temporary monopoly for the creator to be able to profit from their creation, when they are dead, there's no point to it anymore.

Freak_NL 3y ago
In a broader sense, having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works rather than a different source of income where assets accrued can benefit them. In particular in cases where your spouse and children are dependant on your income. That it should be restricted by a lot is obvious by now of course. Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case.
- realusername 3y ago
  > , having your family profit from those works after your death may stimulate one to focus on creating creative works I'd argue the exact opposite, that reduce the incentive to produce new work, why creating new work when you can profit from old ones you haven't put any effort into it? > Also: not having copyright expire upon your death prevents making your (untimely and assisted) death less attractive to anyone who would greatly benefit from those rights to disappear, although I do hope that is a hypothetical edge case. That could be a good argument for it yes, I haven't thought about the external pressure.
bmitc 3y ago
The vast majority of artists struggle to make even a living wage. Many successful artists only become financially so late in life, if ever, and were often in extreme poverty until that happened. Cormac McCarthy is a good example. Is it really fair to their estate to cease all protection of their works just because they died? Is Apple going to relinquish control over patents and the products they protect when their inventors die?
jjk166 3y ago
Most people care about leaving something of value for their descendants. This includes both financial resources and a proud legacy. Indeed, especially late in life, this might be more of a motivator than the limited personal benefit they might derive.