4 ms·
The usefulness of copyright is that in theory, I am automatically own anything I create. The "market" then decides how much its worth, and I decide how much I
by KaiserPro 2y ago
The usefulness of copyright is that in theory, I am automatically own anything I create.
The "market" then decides how much its worth, and I decide how much I want to enforce it (either by assigning rights to people, or removing them entirely by applying a liberal licence.)
However Harberger taxes require me to _pay_ something first. This means that in practice only rich people have copyright, and aggregators like meta, google and ticktok will take all the profit allowing no legal recompense from me.
Which is almost like what we have now.
The issue with copyright is less about how copyright is assigned, its more about how fucking long it lasts. Life + 25 years is probably enough for almost all cases.
But the "its really bad that an artwork cant be used" sentiment is wrong. I made it, I want to control whos using it. The point is that the owner has the right to choose. Do they want thier artistic vision to be fucked up by someone whos only out for money? Do they want someone who they vehemently oppose to use thier stuff for thier own game? (think politician that you don't like)
So no, Harberger taxes will make the worst parts of copyright default, and limit access to the small people who actually really need it's protection.
- jsbg 2y ago> Life + 25 years is probably enough for almost all cases. How do you define "enough" and what would be a case where it wouldn't be enough?
- KaiserPro 2y agoI pulled that time frame out of my arse, so I should have been more clear in where that number came from. but to make my thoughts a bit more clear, "just" life means that as soon as an "author" dies, all their works are immediately public domain, as you know. This would mean that estate owners would have no control over their (usually parent's) legacy. This would allow unscrupulous people (ie people with money) to muck up a legacy by assuming moral rights instantly at death. If a project is unsuitable, tough shit, your parent's legacy aint yours, get used to that Sherlock homes cypto currency.(extreme example) 25 years is enough for a legacy to be created, and a style to be continued, but not long enough for a work to be extinguished or strangled for all the money it's worth. There are arguments for less, and more. But you also need to factor in that new works that contain old copyright, get a whole new time applied. for example casino royal the original will be public domain in ten years, but the daniel craig one wont.
- dialup_sounds 2y agoI understood this to be applied to inherited rights. You, the creator, still pay nothing. But your inheritors would not get 70 years for free.