4 ms·

Mark Twain had a lot to say about copyright. One of his arguments was that if he worked hard and built a business it would help support his children & descendan

Mark Twain had a lot to say about copyright. One of his arguments was that if he worked hard and built a business it would help support his children & descendants for, perhaps, generations. But he was an author and creator and felt that all of his hard labor should be able to support his family after his death. iuf Copyright was only 5 or 10 years then when it expires any publisher could print a artists books or recordings or whatnot... suddenly creators lose access to all royalty income and some dirtbag publisher is collecting all of the coin. Copyright might be inconvenient for some but for many others it is essential to making even a modest income.

aniviacat 2y ago
> One of his arguments was that if he worked hard and built a business it would help support his children & descendants for, perhaps, generations. But he was an author and creator and felt that all of his hard labor should be able to support his family after his death. You'd have to be seriously arrogant to believe that your labour should support multiple generations of your family.
- sensanaty 2y ago
  Why? Shouldn't that be the dream for anyone with a family, and is indeed the case for many people? I don't have any copyrights or trademarks or anything, but if I did I'd much rather my family be the one reaping its benefits when I die rather than some soulless corpo who only wants to use my work to pad their own wallets.
  - aniviacat 2y ago
    > I'd much rather my family be the one reaping its benefits when I die rather than some soulless corpo Those aren't the only two options. If your copyright expired after a few years, your work would simply go into public domain, freely accessible to anyone. (The ones to "reap its benefits" at that point would be the general public.) > Why? The amount of money a single person spends throughout their lifetime generally orientates itself on the amount of money a single person earns throughout their lifetime. (We earn significantly more than 50 years ago, but we also spend a lot more, because our standards rose accordingly.) If you expect your money to support the lives of multiple people (generations even), you are implying that your labour is worth multiple times as much as the labour of others. That is arrogant. (I don't claim it should be actively prevented to make such large amounts of money. But we shouldn't legally limit people's access to literature just so a few authors can create a dynasty.)

aniviacat 2y ago

> One of his arguments was that if he worked hard and built a business it would help support his children & descendants for, perhaps, generations. But he was an author and creator and felt that all of his hard labor should be able to support his family after his death. You'd have to be seriously arrogant to believe that your labour should support multiple generations of your family.

sensanaty 2y ago
Why? Shouldn't that be the dream for anyone with a family, and is indeed the case for many people? I don't have any copyrights or trademarks or anything, but if I did I'd much rather my family be the one reaping its benefits when I die rather than some soulless corpo who only wants to use my work to pad their own wallets.
- aniviacat 2y ago
  > I'd much rather my family be the one reaping its benefits when I die rather than some soulless corpo Those aren't the only two options. If your copyright expired after a few years, your work would simply go into public domain, freely accessible to anyone. (The ones to "reap its benefits" at that point would be the general public.) > Why? The amount of money a single person spends throughout their lifetime generally orientates itself on the amount of money a single person earns throughout their lifetime. (We earn significantly more than 50 years ago, but we also spend a lot more, because our standards rose accordingly.) If you expect your money to support the lives of multiple people (generations even), you are implying that your labour is worth multiple times as much as the labour of others. That is arrogant. (I don't claim it should be actively prevented to make such large amounts of money. But we shouldn't legally limit people's access to literature just so a few authors can create a dynasty.)