5 ms·

I don't believe J.R.R. Tolkien, personally, would have lacked motivation to produce and publish his works if his future estate would have been unable to act in

I don't believe J.R.R. Tolkien, personally, would have lacked motivation to produce and publish his works if his future estate would have been unable to act in a rent-seeking manner 50 years after his death. He published under the pre-1976 regime in the US anyway. Would some choose not to create works because they wouldn't get that deal in a hypothetical world where we reigned-in copyright terms to pre-1976 durations and life-plus clause? Yeah-- maybe. I don't think the effect would be terribly chilling. There was a lot of work made available under the 1909-1976 regime. I certainly don't think we got an explosion of new work because of the 1976 act. It was a windfall for existing rightholders and a method to limit future competition.

freejazz 3y ago
It's a very simple question, telling that you refuse to answer it: "but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"
- EvanAnderson 3y ago
  You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't. Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them. My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now. That's an argument, to me, against the "necessity" of this regime. It serves to show that this regime is rent seeking, a windfall for existing copyright holders, and an impediment to competition.
  - freejazz 3y ago
    "You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't." You kinda did >My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now. It's a pointless observation. No one said that works would never be created without the extensions. >Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them. No one argued that.
    - educaysean 3y ago
      Then what the hell is your argument?
      - EvanAnderson 3y ago
        Thank you.
      - freejazz 3y ago
        I never made an argument, I asked a really simple question that the other poster spent this entire thread avoiding answering

freejazz 3y ago

It's a very simple question, telling that you refuse to answer it: "but are you seriously going to argue that an author has no interest in providing a livelihood to their family and/or offspring, even past their own lives? That seems absurd and in defiance of the economic system we live under"

EvanAnderson 3y ago
You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't. Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them. My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now. That's an argument, to me, against the "necessity" of this regime. It serves to show that this regime is rent seeking, a windfall for existing copyright holders, and an impediment to competition.
- freejazz 3y ago
  "You're killing me here. Yes, most humans seek to maximize their returns. Or course. I never argued they wouldn't." You kinda did >My initial "snark" is a statement that J.R.R. Tolkien didn't create his works under the ridiculous copyright regime we have now. It's a pointless observation. No one said that works would never be created without the extensions. >Many authors would love for their heirs and assigns to be paid in perpetuity. They'd probably love a lot of things. That doesn't mean society is obligated to give those things to them. No one argued that.
  - educaysean 3y ago
    Then what the hell is your argument?
    - EvanAnderson 3y ago
      Thank you.
    - freejazz 3y ago
      I never made an argument, I asked a really simple question that the other poster spent this entire thread avoiding answering