3 ms·

> if you create something so great that people hundreds of years later still cherish it, why shouldn't your grand grand grand kids have a slice of that pie? Be

by lucian1900 13y ago

> if you create something so great that people hundreds of years later still cherish it, why shouldn't your grand grand grand kids have a slice of that pie? Because you could no longer be incentivised to create more, since you'd be dead. Kids should be satisfied with wealth accumulated while you could still create.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
I agree personally, but there is still a difference between that and outright enforcing it as society. Also I'd argue a lot of things were created for the sake of creation anyway (or to be "consumed" on the spot, see classical music, much of it created as a one-off for a specific mass etc... people expected composers to constantly write new stuff, no touring with greatest hits) ... but then it's still up to the authors to license it accordingly, right?
- lucian1900 13y ago
  I think we've seen enough of both worlds (no copyright and 100 year copyright) to know that both extremes are problematic. What about 5-10 year copyright? I'd like to give that a try.
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    Since when have we ever had no copyright? I don't believe that a system whose primary purpose is to give certain people the "right" to attack others with litigation will ever succeed in fueling innovation. The only thing copyright does is pit people against each other. It seems to me that the entire system needs to be removed and replaced with another system with the primary goal of giving authors more control over how they get credit for their works.
    - sdoering 13y ago
      Well, I would say round about 303 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      There was a time before copyright and authors did have trouble with their works being used by others for profit without recompense. It is likely the same would happen now if copyright didn't exist at all. Very short copyright could work, though.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

I agree personally, but there is still a difference between that and outright enforcing it as society. Also I'd argue a lot of things were created for the sake of creation anyway (or to be "consumed" on the spot, see classical music, much of it created as a one-off for a specific mass etc... people expected composers to constantly write new stuff, no touring with greatest hits) ... but then it's still up to the authors to license it accordingly, right?

lucian1900 13y ago
I think we've seen enough of both worlds (no copyright and 100 year copyright) to know that both extremes are problematic. What about 5-10 year copyright? I'd like to give that a try.
- spacelizard 13y ago
  Since when have we ever had no copyright? I don't believe that a system whose primary purpose is to give certain people the "right" to attack others with litigation will ever succeed in fueling innovation. The only thing copyright does is pit people against each other. It seems to me that the entire system needs to be removed and replaced with another system with the primary goal of giving authors more control over how they get credit for their works.
  - sdoering 13y ago
    Well, I would say round about 303 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    There was a time before copyright and authors did have trouble with their works being used by others for profit without recompense. It is likely the same would happen now if copyright didn't exist at all. Very short copyright could work, though.