3 ms·

> does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? In my opinion, it doesn't. In creative and ente

by ronsor 2y ago

> does it really benefit society for their fortunate authors to sit back and get rich resting on their laurels? In my opinion, it doesn't. In creative and entertainment industries, the idea of practically indefinite royalties has been normalized, but no other industries has this*. For example, it would be strange to continue paying a construction company after your home has been built. *As far as I can remember. I'm open to correction here.

lionkor 2y ago
any subscription service that doesn't deliver new value each day or month, like the Adobe suite(s)
- ronsor 2y ago
  In the case of Adobe, you're paying for continuous updates and their added cloud services (or other functionality which requires their servers). Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. Meanwhile one does not pay for continuous updates to a particular novel or a movie. Even if they do pay for new installments in a series, they do so separately.
  - drdeca 2y ago
    > Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. And the per-second pricing is even less!
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Adobe presumably also fixes bugs, so hopefully you are getting something better over time. I've in the past wore out a favorite book and since it was in print bought a new copy - and found the same typos that were in the previous copy.
  - benj111 2y ago
    I'm sure thats what they say you're paying for. I suspect you're just paying a monopoly tax.
radlad 2y ago
I don't understand the analogy. We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. Probably floorplans would be a closer comparison - and I believe they are licensed IP?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. You might pay the construction company again for the identical 2nd house, but you're not going to pay the architect again.
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Dépends. If the 2nd house location requires review by an architect because of ground issues or regulation. If contractual provisions require an architect fee. If small adjustments that may have structural impacts are needed. You won’t pay the same amount, but still something.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      You're quibbling. That's really not at all the same as paying an architect to design an all-new building.
      - Juliate 2y ago
        Not quibbling. That’s not the same order of magnitude but it’s real life. It happens and can be a significant part of revenue for the architect.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Why not? The US, for example, recognizes a copyright in architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t...
- 2y ago
benj111 2y ago
I'd go slightly further. A rich author can retire, and not write any more books. From an encouraging creativity POV, copyright length should be set at about the amount of time it takes to create a followup. But, as open source software, and most authors and musicians demonstrate. People will create without any financial incentive. So ultimately copyright is there to allow an industry that can actually find and distribute these works. For the record, I'm not suggesting that creators should be decently rewarded for their works.
paxys 2y ago
That isn't the right analogy. To start, royalties have nothing to do with copyright. They are simply an agreement between an author and a publisher. I give you the exclusive right to publish my book, and I get a cut of every sale. Royalties extend far beyond creative fields. Any deal where someone gets a percentage share of the sale of a product or service on an ongoing basis is a "royalty". E.g. in manufacturing or even software.

by ronsor 2y ago

lionkor 2y ago

any subscription service that doesn't deliver new value each day or month, like the Adobe suite(s)

ronsor 2y ago
In the case of Adobe, you're paying for continuous updates and their added cloud services (or other functionality which requires their servers). Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. Meanwhile one does not pay for continuous updates to a particular novel or a movie. Even if they do pay for new installments in a series, they do so separately.
- drdeca 2y ago
  > Also Adobe's subscription pricing (per-month) is significantly less than the retail cost for a one-time purchase of their software without future updates. And the per-second pricing is even less!
- bluGill 2y ago
  Adobe presumably also fixes bugs, so hopefully you are getting something better over time. I've in the past wore out a favorite book and since it was in print bought a new copy - and found the same typos that were in the previous copy.
- benj111 2y ago
  I'm sure thats what they say you're paying for. I suspect you're just paying a monopoly tax.

radlad 2y ago

I don't understand the analogy. We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. Probably floorplans would be a closer comparison - and I believe they are licensed IP?

shiroiushi 2y ago
>We do pay construction companies again if we want a second house - even if the design is the same. You might pay the construction company again for the identical 2nd house, but you're not going to pay the architect again.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Dépends. If the 2nd house location requires review by an architect because of ground issues or regulation. If contractual provisions require an architect fee. If small adjustments that may have structural impacts are needed. You won’t pay the same amount, but still something.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    You're quibbling. That's really not at all the same as paying an architect to design an all-new building.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      Not quibbling. That’s not the same order of magnitude but it’s real life. It happens and can be a significant part of revenue for the architect.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Why not? The US, for example, recognizes a copyright in architecture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_t...
2y ago

benj111 2y ago

I'd go slightly further. A rich author can retire, and not write any more books. From an encouraging creativity POV, copyright length should be set at about the amount of time it takes to create a followup. But, as open source software, and most authors and musicians demonstrate. People will create without any financial incentive. So ultimately copyright is there to allow an industry that can actually find and distribute these works. For the record, I'm not suggesting that creators should be decently rewarded for their works.

paxys 2y ago

That isn't the right analogy. To start, royalties have nothing to do with copyright. They are simply an agreement between an author and a publisher. I give you the exclusive right to publish my book, and I get a cut of every sale. Royalties extend far beyond creative fields. Any deal where someone gets a percentage share of the sale of a product or service on an ongoing basis is a "royalty". E.g. in manufacturing or even software.