3 ms·
14 years was good enough in the 1700s, when it was prohibitively expensive to publish anything and global distribution was effectively impossible. Today, those
by autoexec 3y ago
14 years was good enough in the 1700s, when it was prohibitively expensive to publish anything and global distribution was effectively impossible. Today, those things are basically free and happen at close to the speed of light. If you can't make money off of something published globally after a decade, you fucked up. 10 years might even be too long.
It's 100% fine if disney wants to wait a decade to make a movie about something. After that 10 years so can everybody else! There's no amount of time disney couldn't hold out for anyway. What matters is that artistic works get into the hands of the public faster, not how much money an author might lose out on in licensing deals. Copyright doesn't exist to protect possible film deals for authors. It exists to promote the creation of new works. If disney waits 10 years and makes their film then without a license fee, mission accomplished. That's a new creative work. They can then compete with every one else making new works based on that property.
- WeylandYutani 3y agoIf Disney makes a movie about your IP you'll immediately become famous and everyone wants to make deals with you. It would be a lottery ticket.
- troupe 3y agoWell life expectancy was only 37 years in the 1700s as well. So for an adult, 14 years was basically the rest of their life.
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoFor an adult, life expectancy then was 55 or better! See, infant mortality was shit back then which accounted for a big bias in that lifetime '37'. If you survived childhood then you did pretty well. https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit...
- troupe 3y agoGood point.