2 ms·

Interesting to think about. However, for that to be feasible I believe the draconian "copyright forever" laws would have to have never happened. I'm against p

Interesting to think about. However, for that to be feasible I believe the draconian "copyright forever" laws would have to have never happened. I'm against paying rent to corporations to access the work of dead people on principle. Or past say, fifty years even if they lived.

dbrueck 3y ago
I think I'm in the same boat as you, but can you articulate the 'why' behind that sentiment? (saying it's "on principle" could also be a way to not have to address that question, haha) As in, if someone created something and you derive value (utility, enjoyment, etc.) from it, what is the basis for at some point no longer providing compensation for that utility? FWIW, I haven't come up with a completely convincing answer, and yet I still feel like you do! Maybe there is no firm justification for terminating compensation, but instead it's more of an idea instilled by the culture, that after X years, the thing you created becomes owned by society at large just for the greater good, or maybe in recognition that your work came about because of prior accomplishments from others, or that as a society we want ongoing creativity and not stagnation.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  The main goal of copyright is to provide an incentive for the creator to continue creating. Permanent royalties are in direct opposition to that goal. If anything they’re an incentive to retire. Then there’s public domain, which you alluded to.
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> However, for that to be feasible I believe the draconian "copyright forever" laws would have to have never happened. This argument assumes that you are lawful, in opposite to chaotic, on the ethical axis (see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignme...).

2 ms·

Interesting to think about. However, for that to be feasible I believe the draconian "copyright forever" laws would have to have never happened. I'm against p

by mixmastamyk 3y ago

dbrueck 3y ago
I think I'm in the same boat as you, but can you articulate the 'why' behind that sentiment? (saying it's "on principle" could also be a way to not have to address that question, haha) As in, if someone created something and you derive value (utility, enjoyment, etc.) from it, what is the basis for at some point no longer providing compensation for that utility? FWIW, I haven't come up with a completely convincing answer, and yet I still feel like you do! Maybe there is no firm justification for terminating compensation, but instead it's more of an idea instilled by the culture, that after X years, the thing you created becomes owned by society at large just for the greater good, or maybe in recognition that your work came about because of prior accomplishments from others, or that as a society we want ongoing creativity and not stagnation.
- mixmastamyk 3y ago
  The main goal of copyright is to provide an incentive for the creator to continue creating. Permanent royalties are in direct opposition to that goal. If anything they’re an incentive to retire. Then there’s public domain, which you alluded to.
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> However, for that to be feasible I believe the draconian "copyright forever" laws would have to have never happened. This argument assumes that you are lawful, in opposite to chaotic, on the ethical axis (see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignment https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterAlignme...).