3 ms·

I think the publish date plus 20 years not to exceed the life of the author is plenty.

by beej71 3y ago

adventured 3y ago
There are some significant edge cases that can plainly make that unfair. Let's say Kurt Cobain dies at 27 (or even younger) without an heir other than a very young daughter. ~95% of his earning capacity might be in the next 15 years, rather than the prior 5 years. The daughter might be cast into relying on charity while everybody else gets to freely commercially exploit his music after his death. ('the US social safety net needs reformed'; pre-empting those responses, because one is extraordinarily difficult to reform, the other isn't nearly so; that'd just be an excuse to hide behind) Ritchie Valens comes from a poor family, creates a gigantic hit, dies at 17. His family deserves nothing specifically, while everybody else gets to freely commercially exploit his young talent forever. A life of the author clause is inherently cruel. 20 years fixed, approaches that in a far more reasonable and fair manner. Families / heirs matter too. They often suffer, or otherwise carry a share of weight for the artist, so the artist can create, tour, publish, publicize, etc. Pretending otherwise is pure fantasy, it's life in an idealized vacuum.
- beej71 3y ago
  I agree that's a potential loss with a 20 year or life term, but I still argue this is a net gain for the world. Edit: I might be flexible on the life part. But not the 20.
- account42 3y ago
  Personally I would not involve the authors life at all in the term (then again I think the ideal term length is zero) but I also don't see an artist kids not being able to profit from their dead parents works anymore unfair than a cobblers kids not being able to profit from their parents works after death. Life isn't fair. If someone needs welfare than I am in support of making sure it is available - but please let's not use it as an excuse for unrelated laws.
blackoil 3y ago
Would you like this for all assets, basically banning inheritance. Govt will seize all property, savings, stocks etc on a person's death.
- beej71 3y ago
  No.
- isykt 3y ago
  False premise. Intellectual property is not equivalent to those assets.

I think the publish date plus 20 years not to exceed the life of the author is plenty.

by beej71 3y ago

I think the publish date plus 20 years not to exceed the life of the author is plenty.

There are some significant edge cases that can plainly make that unfair. Let's say Kurt Cobain dies at 27 (or even younger) without an heir other than a very young daughter. ~95% of his earning capacity might be in the next 15 years, rather than the prior 5 years. The daughter might be cast into relying on charity while everybody else gets to freely commercially exploit his music after his death. ('the US social safety net needs reformed'; pre-empting those responses, because one is extraordinarily difficult to reform, the other isn't nearly so; that'd just be an excuse to hide behind) Ritchie Valens comes from a poor family, creates a gigantic hit, dies at 17. His family deserves nothing specifically, while everybody else gets to freely commercially exploit his young talent forever. A life of the author clause is inherently cruel. 20 years fixed, approaches that in a far more reasonable and fair manner. Families / heirs matter too. They often suffer, or otherwise carry a share of weight for the artist, so the artist can create, tour, publish, publicize, etc. Pretending otherwise is pure fantasy, it's life in an idealized vacuum.

beej71 3y ago
I agree that's a potential loss with a 20 year or life term, but I still argue this is a net gain for the world. Edit: I might be flexible on the life part. But not the 20.
account42 3y ago
Personally I would not involve the authors life at all in the term (then again I think the ideal term length is zero) but I also don't see an artist kids not being able to profit from their dead parents works anymore unfair than a cobblers kids not being able to profit from their parents works after death. Life isn't fair. If someone needs welfare than I am in support of making sure it is available - but please let's not use it as an excuse for unrelated laws.

blackoil 3y ago

Would you like this for all assets, basically banning inheritance. Govt will seize all property, savings, stocks etc on a person's death.

beej71 3y ago
No.
isykt 3y ago
False premise. Intellectual property is not equivalent to those assets.