Comment

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

<- View Parent

obvs@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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

Sort:hotnew top

SaltSong@startrek.website ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
In this example, the child is living, and has needs.

source
- DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  I don’t think they said a publisher was involved.
  
  source
  - spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?
    
    source
    paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.
    
    I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.
    
    source
- wisely@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
  - spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    People make money off of the public domain all the time. A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.
    
    source