AU Productivity Comm says unblock AU and stop rewarding DRM holders in grave!

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The same is true for a book. Unless it continues to be printed, sold and marketed, the heirs will not make any money.

I think it would be a significant disincentive for many authors to be told that they could not make financial provision for their family after their death. We might disagree about how long that provision should continue (personally I think 70 years is too long), but I'm strongly in favour of the principle that an author's dependents should continue to benefit after the author's death.

The heirs have the money the author made in his/her lifetime, just as my heirs will have the money I make in my lifetime. My heirs will not benefit from my skills and effort after my death, so why should the author's heirs?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

The heirs have the money the author made in his/her lifetime, just as my heirs will have the money I make in my lifetime. My heirs will not benefit from my skills and effort after my death, so why should the author's heirs?

Because writing is a fundamentally different activity to a "normal" job. If you're in pretty much any other job, you get paid at the time you do the work. When you write a book, you don't get paid while you're doing it - all the income comes in, spread over a period of years, after it's finished.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because writing is a fundamentally different activity to a "normal" job. If you're in pretty much any other job, you get paid at the time you do the work. When you write a book, you don't get paid while you're doing it - all the income comes in, spread over a period of years, after it's finished.

I work in a profession that takes a lot of investment time wise to get to a position where I can make a comfortable liveable income. The compensation for that effort and sacrifice comes over a period of years after I qualify. If I drop dead now, having just qualified, my family does not get the consideration of an income representative of that effort and sacrifice.

My risks are not covered by the law. I do not see why their risk should be.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which treaty specifically are you referring to?

I would have to look up specifics, but are you saying that all treaties that have reached in the past are still in effect? Because seriously, I don't believe that's true.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I work in a profession that takes a lot of investment time wise to get to a position where I can make a comfortable liveable income. The compensation for that effort and sacrifice comes over a period of years after I qualify. If I drop dead now, having just qualified, my family does not get the consideration of an income representative of that effort and sacrifice.

My risks are not covered by the law. I do not see why their risk should be.

I really don't see that it's any different to the situation where, to pick an arbitrary example, I buy a house and leave it to my heirs. My heirs are benefiting from that property in precisely the same way that an author's heirs are benefiting from royalty income. Neither has done anything to earn it. Why would you make an arbitrary distinction between the two situatuon?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really don't see that it's any different to the situation where, to pick an arbitrary example, I buy a house and leave it to my heirs. My heirs are benefiting from that property in precisely the same way that an author's heirs are benefiting from royalty income. Neither has done anything to earn it. Why would you make an arbitrary distinction between the two situatuon?

Because a house has to be maintained and the property tax needs to be paid on it.

Royalty income comes in whether you do anything or not.

Shari

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really don't see that it's any different to the situation where, to pick an arbitrary example, I buy a house and leave it to my heirs. My heirs are benefiting from that property in precisely the same way that an author's heirs are benefiting from royalty income. Neither has done anything to earn it. Why would you make an arbitrary distinction between the two situatuon?

Because:

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

The crux of the debate here is whether authors or content creators ought to be categorised as the former or the latter. I think it should be the former, since even an established business needs proper work to be out in to keep it running after the demise of the first proprietor.

The very existence of royalty income after death is an arbitrary imposition by the law borne of arbitrarily categorizing author earnings in the latter rather than the former.

All arguments by either side here depends on arbitrary decisions. There is no moral 'right' here that is consistent across professions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Because a house has to be maintained and the property tax needs to be paid on it.

Royalty income comes in whether you do anything or not.

Shari

Then let's suppose instead that the heirs sell the house and get the money that way. Either way you appear to be saying (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) that it's fine for heirs to benefit from property, but not from royalty payments. I see absolutely no difference between the two.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Then let's suppose instead that the heirs sell the house and get the money that way. Either way you appear to be saying (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) that it's fine for heirs to benefit from property, but not from royalty payments. I see absolutely no difference between the two.

There's a difference. If someone sells the house and takes the money, then that's equivalent to selling the rights and taking a lump sum payment. They would never get any other monies from the book. If someone inherits a copyright and keeps the rights so that they continue to get royalties, then they don't have to do anything to keep them.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

If someone inherits a copyright and keeps the rights so that they continue to get royalties, then they don't have to do anything to keep them.

Shari

Just as if you inherit shares in a company, you'll be paid dividends on those shares. What's the difference between inheriting shares, and inheriting a copyright?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just as if you inherit shares in a company, you'll be paid dividends on those shares. What's the difference between inheriting shares, and inheriting a copyright?

Hmmm...that I'm not sure of, since I don't know much of anything about how shares work. You may have a point with those, though.

Shari

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Then let's suppose instead that the heirs sell the house and get the money that way. Either way you appear to be saying (and please correct me if I've misunderstood you) that it's fine for heirs to benefit from property, but not from royalty payments. I see absolutely no difference between the two.

Because copyright is not property. The term intellectual property was coined to give the illusion that it is property, but it's not. In the United States, writers are given exclusive Right to their writings for a limited time. Property, on the other hand, has no such limitation on it.

[eschwartz]

I thought the primary difference between intellectual copyright and other inheritables is that copyright only exists to further the public good and motivate the creation of new works?

You can't own an idea -- but we'll give you distribution monopolies for a limited time if it will encourage you to think of new ones.
Are you more likely to write a book in the knowledge that your heirs will benefit 70 years after your death, than you would be if you yourself got 28 years of royalty payments? Excuse me while I laugh...

Why does copyright EVER end, if you keep trying to compare it to houses and shares in a company?

[Lynx-lynx]

I've wondered why paintings and sculptures and the like aren't copyrighted .....

It seems to me the same intellectual property arguments apply as for a book. In a book the thoughts/ideas are in written and/or pictorial format.

In a painting or sculpture those thoughts and ideas are drawn/painted/chiselled etc. So why is it that the originator loses further financial benefit/entitlement on original sale?

[jhowell]

Artists and sculptors retain copyright for their works even after the originals are sold.

ETA: The copyright for cover art in books is an example of this.

For visual art the image is copyrighted, just as for books the words (not the physical paper and ink of the original manuscript) is copyrighted.