4 ms·

The best argument I've heard for the current length of copyright is this- If someone spends decades building a business, such as a drycleaning chain, they're a

The best argument I've heard for the current length of copyright is this- If someone spends decades building a business, such as a drycleaning chain, they're able to pass that on to future generations. In fact, the ability to pass a business on is a major motivation for a lot of people to build that business in the first place. So why shouldn't Rowling be able to pass Harry Potter on to her kids? Why should her business be treated differently? I don't completely agree with this argument. It doesn't address rights sold to corporations, for example. And personally I'd like to see copyright terms at about half of what they are now. But this particular argument does have some merit, and I'm not completely against it, either.

acabal 12y ago
Businesses and culture are very different. Businesses exist solely to make money, and perhaps solve a real-world problem doing it. You can start a new dry-cleaning business even though there's another dry cleaner across the street who does the exact same thing. Culture--the fabric of our past, woven through creative work like art and literature--isn't the same. Some culture exists to make money, but much doesn't. We all absorb it almost without realizing it or intending to. A child might inherit a dry-cleaner and build a career running and improving it, or likewise failing and causing the inheritance to go bust. But the child of JK Rowling had absolutely no practical bearing on the creation of Harry Potter, and the books Rowling already wrote are unalterable. Thus children who inherit intellectual "property" wind up as pure rent-seekers on our culture, at best idle managers/stewards of someone else's hard work. (Now you might say that a child might inherit an apartment building, thus making them rent-seekers in the practical sense--and that's true, literally. But an apartment building has taxes, upkeep, maintenance, etc. involved--it requires work to maintain. But opening a mailbox to collect the royalty check on your grandparent's grandparent's novel is rent-seeking in the philosophical sense.) Furthermore, new culture is invariably built upon old culture. All the famous old Disney films that Disney is trying so hard to keep out of the public domain were themselves based on public-domain work. Try using a character from a Disney film in your work and see how quickly their lawyers find you. Try copying a dry-cleaner wholesale and you're just one more business on the block. In short, comparing an inherited business to an inherited intangible cultural work isn't a fair comparison. It might seem fair because nowadays we (tragically!) use the word "property" to describe what is actually a "temporary government-sanctioned monopoly"--but ideas aren't property, and business isn't culture.
cbd1984 12y ago
> So why shouldn't Rowling be able to pass Harry Potter on to her kids? Why should her business be treated differently? Because her kids could do absolutely nothing and live off of royalty checks or whatever her media empire generates and still be very very rich. That's dishonest in a lot of people's minds, right and left, and people tend to want to fix that problem. (Just because I mentioned that mindset tells you absolutely nothing about whether I hold it.) A more sophisticated take on that argument is, if someone can set up their entire genetic lineage from one series of novels, where's their descendants' incentive to create more? Are we really that sure that nobody descended from Rowling would have been a creator but for this windfall? Another, somewhat related argument, is the idea that copyright stakes out too much territory, which would otherwise have been used by legal fanfic, which could set up other families, and why should we disallow that? I know Rowling is very permissive about fanfic, but why should someone else's business be up to her?
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  >Because her kids could do absolutely nothing and live off of royalty checks or whatever her media empire generates and still be very very rich Sure, that could happen. But it happens all the time with drycleaners and steel mills and car dealerships and whatever else too. It takes a huge amount of work, not just creative, but business work, to get build something that lasts like that. What about brands? What about people who build a large brand in retail or fast food or cars or whatever? They can leave the fruits of their brand building to their children. Why is the Harry Potter brand the odd man out? And there's certainly a lot of work to be done keeping the business going. Someone is running the James Bond empire, the Disney empire, the Tolkien empire. They don't run themselves. Actual work is involved. Anyway, like I said, I don't totally buy the argument, but it's not completely invalid either.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > Why is the Harry Potter brand the odd man out? Because it can keep ticking along without producing a single new thing. Coca-Cola, to remain worth anything, must at least keep producing new bottles of soda. > And there's certainly a lot of work to be done keeping the business going. Someone is running the James Bond empire, the Disney empire, the Tolkien empire. They don't run themselves. Actual work is involved. Actual work which nobody but the heirs will see the benefits of, assuming what I have assumed. Now, it's possible I'm completely out to sea on this, and that if nobody keeps making new works in the Harry Potter universe the brand and franchise will die. But the mere fact copyright law makes such self-sustaining non-productive empires possible is irksome.
bsder 12y ago
> So why shouldn't Rowling be able to pass Harry Potter on to her kids? Why should her business be treated differently? Because we grant copyright in order to encourage further production of creative works. Rowling's kids are not likely to produce further works no matter how long their copyright is. There is no benefit to society for granting copyright much beyond the life of the creative individual. In fact, the problem is precisely the opposite. Because we keep giving longer copyright terms, properties like Mickey Mouse and Sonic the Hedgehog get dull, uninspired treatments when new people could take those properties and make something cool.
njharman 12y ago
I don't by that analogy. Copyrights don't constitute a business. They are pseudo property. Property with limitations. For example, owners are not allowed to obstruct, etc. shared resources contained within their real property.(air above, water running through, right of ways). All creative output is derived from our shared culture, a shared resource. One requiring renewal. Copyright holders should only be granted their rights selectively and for limited times. Returning the shared resources contained within their works to the Public Domain.

acabal 12y ago

Businesses and culture are very different. Businesses exist solely to make money, and perhaps solve a real-world problem doing it. You can start a new dry-cleaning business even though there's another dry cleaner across the street who does the exact same thing. Culture--the fabric of our past, woven through creative work like art and literature--isn't the same. Some culture exists to make money, but much doesn't. We all absorb it almost without realizing it or intending to. A child might inherit a dry-cleaner and build a career running and improving it, or likewise failing and causing the inheritance to go bust. But the child of JK Rowling had absolutely no practical bearing on the creation of Harry Potter, and the books Rowling already wrote are unalterable. Thus children who inherit intellectual "property" wind up as pure rent-seekers on our culture, at best idle managers/stewards of someone else's hard work. (Now you might say that a child might inherit an apartment building, thus making them rent-seekers in the practical sense--and that's true, literally. But an apartment building has taxes, upkeep, maintenance, etc. involved--it requires work to maintain. But opening a mailbox to collect the royalty check on your grandparent's grandparent's novel is rent-seeking in the philosophical sense.) Furthermore, new culture is invariably built upon old culture. All the famous old Disney films that Disney is trying so hard to keep out of the public domain were themselves based on public-domain work. Try using a character from a Disney film in your work and see how quickly their lawyers find you. Try copying a dry-cleaner wholesale and you're just one more business on the block. In short, comparing an inherited business to an inherited intangible cultural work isn't a fair comparison. It might seem fair because nowadays we (tragically!) use the word "property" to describe what is actually a "temporary government-sanctioned monopoly"--but ideas aren't property, and business isn't culture.

cbd1984 12y ago

> So why shouldn't Rowling be able to pass Harry Potter on to her kids? Why should her business be treated differently? Because her kids could do absolutely nothing and live off of royalty checks or whatever her media empire generates and still be very very rich. That's dishonest in a lot of people's minds, right and left, and people tend to want to fix that problem. (Just because I mentioned that mindset tells you absolutely nothing about whether I hold it.) A more sophisticated take on that argument is, if someone can set up their entire genetic lineage from one series of novels, where's their descendants' incentive to create more? Are we really that sure that nobody descended from Rowling would have been a creator but for this windfall? Another, somewhat related argument, is the idea that copyright stakes out too much territory, which would otherwise have been used by legal fanfic, which could set up other families, and why should we disallow that? I know Rowling is very permissive about fanfic, but why should someone else's business be up to her?

waterlesscloud 12y ago
>Because her kids could do absolutely nothing and live off of royalty checks or whatever her media empire generates and still be very very rich Sure, that could happen. But it happens all the time with drycleaners and steel mills and car dealerships and whatever else too. It takes a huge amount of work, not just creative, but business work, to get build something that lasts like that. What about brands? What about people who build a large brand in retail or fast food or cars or whatever? They can leave the fruits of their brand building to their children. Why is the Harry Potter brand the odd man out? And there's certainly a lot of work to be done keeping the business going. Someone is running the James Bond empire, the Disney empire, the Tolkien empire. They don't run themselves. Actual work is involved. Anyway, like I said, I don't totally buy the argument, but it's not completely invalid either.
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > Why is the Harry Potter brand the odd man out? Because it can keep ticking along without producing a single new thing. Coca-Cola, to remain worth anything, must at least keep producing new bottles of soda. > And there's certainly a lot of work to be done keeping the business going. Someone is running the James Bond empire, the Disney empire, the Tolkien empire. They don't run themselves. Actual work is involved. Actual work which nobody but the heirs will see the benefits of, assuming what I have assumed. Now, it's possible I'm completely out to sea on this, and that if nobody keeps making new works in the Harry Potter universe the brand and franchise will die. But the mere fact copyright law makes such self-sustaining non-productive empires possible is irksome.

bsder 12y ago

> So why shouldn't Rowling be able to pass Harry Potter on to her kids? Why should her business be treated differently? Because we grant copyright in order to encourage further production of creative works. Rowling's kids are not likely to produce further works no matter how long their copyright is. There is no benefit to society for granting copyright much beyond the life of the creative individual. In fact, the problem is precisely the opposite. Because we keep giving longer copyright terms, properties like Mickey Mouse and Sonic the Hedgehog get dull, uninspired treatments when new people could take those properties and make something cool.

njharman 12y ago

I don't by that analogy. Copyrights don't constitute a business. They are pseudo property. Property with limitations. For example, owners are not allowed to obstruct, etc. shared resources contained within their real property.(air above, water running through, right of ways). All creative output is derived from our shared culture, a shared resource. One requiring renewal. Copyright holders should only be granted their rights selectively and for limited times. Returning the shared resources contained within their works to the Public Domain.