4 ms·

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 - eve

by 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...
tmtvl 2y ago
I believe the analogy is as follows: Imagine that you've paid the construction company after it finished building your house. You then go and live in it. One year later you get an invoice because you're living in the house they built. That's what doesn't happen and what (I think) GP means with indefinite royalties: the person who owns the house has to keep paying the company which built the house. The problem with that analogy is of course that royalties are based off profits, but there are ways to consider a home to have its own sense of profit (like the Belgian legal term 'cadastral income': > Cadastral income is not an actual income. It is a notional value that we determine for an immovable property (building or land). This corresponds to the average annual net rental income you would receive in 1975 for your leased out property. ).
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  not only that, is that the analogy includes a surprise invoice. Royalties are contract law. A closer analogy would be rent. Why do we allow a builder to collect rent a year after building a house.
Mindwipe 2y ago
> We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. Libraries certainly do in basically every country in the world apart from the US.

by radlad 2y ago

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...

tmtvl 2y ago

I believe the analogy is as follows: Imagine that you've paid the construction company after it finished building your house. You then go and live in it. One year later you get an invoice because you're living in the house they built. That's what doesn't happen and what (I think) GP means with indefinite royalties: the person who owns the house has to keep paying the company which built the house. The problem with that analogy is of course that royalties are based off profits, but there are ways to consider a home to have its own sense of profit (like the Belgian legal term 'cadastral income': > Cadastral income is not an actual income. It is a notional value that we determine for an immovable property (building or land). This corresponds to the average annual net rental income you would receive in 1975 for your leased out property. ).

s1artibartfast 2y ago
not only that, is that the analogy includes a surprise invoice. Royalties are contract law. A closer analogy would be rent. Why do we allow a builder to collect rent a year after building a house.

Mindwipe 2y ago

> We don't continue to pay authors after we buy their book. Libraries certainly do in basically every country in the world apart from the US.