3 ms·

I think there are certain benefits various continental models have over the British one. Assignment of copyright to the author, with a degree of non-transferabi

I think there are certain benefits various continental models have over the British one. Assignment of copyright to the author, with a degree of non-transferability, advantages individuals rather than monopolistic corporation. Of course, a dualist system where the financial rights are explicitly separate and less enduring would perhaps be better still.

juped 3y ago
The financial rights are the good part. People should be paid for their work; this is how to get the incentives aligned and promote the progress of science and the arts. Making them into incredibly long-lived rent fiefdoms is bad, and the terms should be much shorter. However, the "moral rights" part should simply not exist at all; the only restraint a copyright holder should have is the ability to demand payment. In money. Possibly at a statutory rate, like with existing compulsory licensing in songwriting.
- Chris_Newton 3y ago
  But there are other forms of compensation that some creators are evidently willing to accept in exchange for their own contribution: see FOSS, Creative Commons, etc. If you restrict the compensation to purely financial forms then copyright is no longer an effective incentive for arguably the second most successful model for creative work that we’ve found so far. Why give that up?
  - Alpha3031 3y ago
    Exactly my thoughts, thank you. Most of my CC licenced work is under CC BY-SA. I would possibly be willing to licence under CC-BY, but certainly not CC0, and I believe I am well justified to do so, as would someone who prefers NC-SA or NC-ND. I don't see why the exploitation rights should be elevated on some pedestal even if it is a easy compensation scheme to set up. Then again I don't expect to change the minds of anyone so committed to the British model as juped clearly was, and I'm sure nor do they, mine.
  - juped 3y ago
    No, see, I don't accept the moral rights of authors as legitimate. See my original comment. Because I don't accept these rights, I don't think "compensating" someone by putting restraints on others would be at all legitimate. Framing it as "compensation" helps bring into focus how abhorrent it is, in fact. What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled?
    - Chris_Newton 3y ago
      No, see, I don't accept the moral rights of authors as legitimate. What do you believe determines the legitimacy of any legal construct? Why should it be OK to say people can’t copy information without paying for it, but not OK to say someone can make their work freely available for anyone who wants to benefit with the one condition that anyone republishing it give credit where it’s due and not plagiarise? What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled? “Muzzled” seems like a very loaded term. Giving credit where it’s due is something I think many people would consider a basic act of fairness, and to me it doesn’t seem like much to ask in return for benefitting from someone else’s creative work. Likewise if someone is willing to share their work with others and all they’re asking in return is that others share their derived work on the same basis, that also doesn’t seem terribly unfair. The alternative in either case might be that the work is never created or shared at all.
      - juped 3y ago
        Misattribution or failure to attribute is a species of fraud, it has no relation to copyright.

juped 3y ago

The financial rights are the good part. People should be paid for their work; this is how to get the incentives aligned and promote the progress of science and the arts. Making them into incredibly long-lived rent fiefdoms is bad, and the terms should be much shorter. However, the "moral rights" part should simply not exist at all; the only restraint a copyright holder should have is the ability to demand payment. In money. Possibly at a statutory rate, like with existing compulsory licensing in songwriting.

Chris_Newton 3y ago
But there are other forms of compensation that some creators are evidently willing to accept in exchange for their own contribution: see FOSS, Creative Commons, etc. If you restrict the compensation to purely financial forms then copyright is no longer an effective incentive for arguably the second most successful model for creative work that we’ve found so far. Why give that up?
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  Exactly my thoughts, thank you. Most of my CC licenced work is under CC BY-SA. I would possibly be willing to licence under CC-BY, but certainly not CC0, and I believe I am well justified to do so, as would someone who prefers NC-SA or NC-ND. I don't see why the exploitation rights should be elevated on some pedestal even if it is a easy compensation scheme to set up. Then again I don't expect to change the minds of anyone so committed to the British model as juped clearly was, and I'm sure nor do they, mine.
- juped 3y ago
  No, see, I don't accept the moral rights of authors as legitimate. See my original comment. Because I don't accept these rights, I don't think "compensating" someone by putting restraints on others would be at all legitimate. Framing it as "compensation" helps bring into focus how abhorrent it is, in fact. What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled?
  - Chris_Newton 3y ago
    No, see, I don't accept the moral rights of authors as legitimate. What do you believe determines the legitimacy of any legal construct? Why should it be OK to say people can’t copy information without paying for it, but not OK to say someone can make their work freely available for anyone who wants to benefit with the one condition that anyone republishing it give credit where it’s due and not plagiarise? What kind of person derives "compensation" from seeing others muzzled? “Muzzled” seems like a very loaded term. Giving credit where it’s due is something I think many people would consider a basic act of fairness, and to me it doesn’t seem like much to ask in return for benefitting from someone else’s creative work. Likewise if someone is willing to share their work with others and all they’re asking in return is that others share their derived work on the same basis, that also doesn’t seem terribly unfair. The alternative in either case might be that the work is never created or shared at all.
    - juped 3y ago
      Misattribution or failure to attribute is a species of fraud, it has no relation to copyright.