3 ms·
These things are not unrelated. The author can only sell their rights for a sizeable chunk of money precisely because the big corpo can then milk the profits. Y
by rich_sasha 3y ago
These things are not unrelated. The author can only sell their rights for a sizeable chunk of money precisely because the big corpo can then milk the profits. You take that away, and suddenly creating valuable "content" doesn't pay.
- dmurray 3y agoHistorically (and now, for the most part) books were copyright the author, but a large of the profits accrued to the publisher. That system worked fine.
- Alpha3031 3y agoWould be nice if a higher proportion of the profits accrued to the author though.
- f1shy 3y agoIt do pays. Means more work maybe. Doing recitals, or whatever…
- kibwen 3y agoPeople were creating art for thousands of years before copyright became perpetual. People were creating art for thousands of years before their art became feasibly monetizable. Hell, people were creating art for thousands of years before the concept of money even existed. I harbor precisely zero concern that shortening copyright to a "mere" 28 years will suddenly cause all human capacity for art to evaporate.
- melagonster 3y agobut this is first time authors and musicians can get their money
- WarOnPrivacy 3y agoI'm currently reading about how folks who produced & performed 14th century plays supported themselves. So much that govs took in a healthy amount of taxes.
- jasonjayr 3y agoAre independent artists and musicians getting any significant amount of money with the current policy?