Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
If that is the case, wouldn't the majority of economic benefit go to the creator?
|
Until very recently, the creator
chose to transfer the rights. Thus, the laws favor whoever holds the rights.
As self-publishing becomes more common, we'll see more examples of content creators receiving direct compensation for their work.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
Follow the money. It doesn't. Now if you define "rights holder" as a non-creative intermediary....
|
That's not the definition.
The rights holder is whoever currently holds the copyright. If I self-publish, it's me. If I self-publish, pass away, and bequeath my rights to my successors, it's them. If I transfer my rights to a publisher, it's the publisher.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
In a legal world without copyright laws (and such worlds have existed, more than worlds with copyright) all creative expressions become common property of all upon public release.
|
Fine, but that is as relevant as saying you should fear the Spanish Inquisition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RSE
It won't stop violations of copyright, only the abandonment of certain technologies will.
|
If you are referring to DRM, clearly that is not the case.
Yet again: Music is now available without DRM, in standard formats, at reasonable prices, from multiple vendors. That's been the case for a few years now. And yet, music is still widely pirated, and the only thing that mitigates any amount of piracy is legal action.
I'd also expect that the average person, and pirate, actually have no idea how long copyright terms are in their country.
Piracy isn't a protest. It isn't encouraged by DRM. It isn't encouraged by long copyright terms. It isn't a result of outrageous prices. We have piracy because people like free stuff.