Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
Human nature. More products selling simultaneously=more money coming in.
The proof's in the pudding on that, look how many books uber successful authors like Grisham and King crap out when they haven't had to worry about money for ages.
We live in a capitalistic world (with a few communist/socialist countries still in denial) where everyone tries to maximize profit.
|
They don't need to worry about money so they make crap... isn't that an argument for shorter copyrights? I also don't understand why you think profit motive is the only reason to create or do anything for that matter. Why did you make that post? Do you make money from it? How? If you don't personally profit why do you expect that to be the sole motivation in other people.
Money's nice, I'm not knocking money at all but I tend to believe that people might do things for some other reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmaul1114
Hey, I said I support death plus maybe 10-15 years. I think a fixed term is silly--just saying I could accept it if it was long enough.
The bottom line for me is I can't accept any system where a content creator can see other people making money off their work during their lifetime without them getting their royalties.
There's no right to profit (getting to your quote from earlier) as there's no guarantee a product will sale. But there should be a right not to see other's make money off your creation during your lifetime without you getting a cut.
Unless they give permission of course. People are free to give their content away, to grant rights to people to use it without being paid etc.
|
Death+ does not by my understanding meet the constitutional requirement of limited time. It may work outside the US but well...
Past performance is no guarantee of future gains. Just because there's been a trend of everyone who's born eventually dies doesn't mean it'll always be the case. I'm just waiting for some media company to wheel out a corpsicle as proof copyright shouldn't expire.
Limited means limited. No upper bound has been set with life+.
The same goes for any term longer than the expected human lifetime. If someone born the day something is copyrighted can't reasonably expect to have that thing pass into the public domain before they die then they in the form of their government have effectively granted an unlimited copyright term. They were granted nothing at all in return.
Now then it's impossible to stop others form making money off your work. People will resell it, publishers will take a cut, a bigger one than you'll get. The government will take taxes. Shit happens. I don't see how that in any way justifies a long term monopoly over a piece of human culture.
The problem here is you don't favor balance, you load everything to one side and expect everyone to call it fair. You get, the authors get's, the authors have the right to, no one else should be able to... Everyone else is getting nothing in return. An author selling a work isn't a benefit to anyone but the author, the benefit to everyone else only comes when they can do as they like, when it belongs to them not just the author.