View Single Post
Old 07-13-2012, 11:06 AM   #35
ApK
Award-Winning Participant
ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,393
Karma: 68715774
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ, USA
Device: Kindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
Films are (almost always) made by corporations. If those corporations are not permitted to own the intellectual property that they create, what would be the incentive in making it?
They would simply change to a model of having the copyright be in the name of the director, or producer or someone like that.

But I think the better answer is to have DIFFERENT terms for copyrights held by an individual and those held by another legal entity.

Something like, the individual gets life+28 or something, and the corporate entity gets 28 years renewable once.

The actual numbers are arguable, but the idea is, we do need incentive for the creation of good IP but we also need to bring us back to the idea that the reason for doing so is to benefit society by actually making it part of the public domain sometime.

ApK

Last edited by ApK; 07-13-2012 at 11:10 AM.
ApK is offline   Reply With Quote