Comment

Comment on If copyright on a work expired immediately after death, would be that a bad or good idea?

obvs@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

That is the BARE MINIMUM of reason.

There’s no reason IN THE WORLD for any kind of idea of “intellectual property” to exist once the creator is dead.

NONE.

It doesn’t benefit the creator in any way to have such a system where people can claim ownership of another’s work after death. All that does is deny the living things that could help them in favor of some ridiculous notion that you’re helping the dead; it’s asinine.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Why should the benefits of my labor not pass on to my children just because it’s a creative work?

source
- gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Because the benefits of labour don’t pass on to your children, period?
  
  Maybe there’s something out there I’m unaware of, but I don’t understand the implication in your question.
  
  source
  - spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Inheritance
    
    source
    gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That’s not «the benefits of labour» being passed on to your children, is it? That’s what you own being passed on to your children… And it’s taxed! Maybe it would be a good idea to have taxes on inherited IP, though. Then again, if the taxes are at or above 50% then wouldn’t that mean that the state would inherit control over the IP, hence making it public domain? Meh.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?

It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.

The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.

source
- Jarix@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This highlights that we are fucked in her shit how we take care of ourselves, kids shouldn’t be made to struggle before if economics of parents.
  
  Neither should adults, but economics based survival is what we have until we all decide why the fuck don’t we just cover the basics of a decent life, no strings at all, waste your life doing what you want or be the best version of yourself, getting us from financial from would just solve so many problems.
  
  Like needing copyright to secure financial gain/benefit.
  
  Especially for creative/cultural works that only have value because other humans went to to share an experience
  
  source
- paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Nope, the kid is fucked. We need public ownership of his father’s work ASAP.
  
  I’m just being silly and taking the counter view to the extreme
  
  source
- bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This happens all the time to people who don’t receive royalties. Parents die, kids get nothing. End of.
  
  source
  - dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You might expand that to “society continuing to allow children to suffer because their parents are unable to care for them is a larger issue than the question of copyright.”
    
    source
    spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    If we addressed the core issues of people having what they need to live copyright would no longer have a reason for existing.
    
    source
  - spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.
    
    Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.
    
    source
- obvs@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
  
  Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It’s not justified.
  
  source
  - spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.
    
    What terrible priorities.
    
    source
    paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I don’t think they said a publisher was involved.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    wisely@feddit.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I think they mean it would become public domain and nobody would make money off of it. Books could be downloaded or used for free without a publisher.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - SaltSong@startrek.website ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    In this example, the child is living, and has needs.
    
    source
    DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
    
    source