| |
| ▲ | chipdale 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > There's zero benefit to society Wouldn't it result in additional tax revenue while preventing Disney's movies from proliferating throughout society unimpeded? In all honesty, I really think you should think this idea through. Compared to the status quo, where we get zero tax revenue from intellectual property, this system would guarantee an expiration based on commercial viability. It couldn't sustain forever because the scale would always accelerate at a rate faster than any economy could sustain it. But it would have this additional benefit in that the more some intellectual property becomes commercially sustainable, the more revenue society can collect. How does that even begin to approach horrible when it's magnitudes more equitable than the status quo? | |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Disney are able to pay that amount because their IP is still generating massive income. I'm not a fan of Disney at all, just pointing out what i belive might be the flaw in the argument. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Disney are able to pay that amount because their IP is still generating massive income. That's entirely irrelevant though. The point of copyright isn't to protect income. The point is to encourage the creation of new works. Disney doesn't need 100+ years of exclusive profits on something to encourage them to create new works. Nobody does. I'd even argue that the more popular a work is the more important it is that it enter the public domain sooner rather than later. The less cultural relevancy something has when it enters the public domain the less likely it will inspire new works to be created. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Another thing that doesn't get brought up enough: Copyright is not really needed to encourage creation. Suppose Copyright as a concept was overturned and no longer existed. Would Disney just say "Well, it was a great run, but we're going to close up shop and no longer create works." Would an independent artist who needs to paint something decide not to just because it couldn't be copyright? "The creation of new works" doesn't need to be encouraged. It's the default. Cavemen still carved on cave walls without copyright. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're absolutely right that artists can't stop themselves from creating, but I think that a reasonable amount of protection still does encourage more works. Many works require a good deal of investment and time and if people had little to no chance of making money or breaking even on that investment a lot of works wouldn't get made. Another nice aspect of copyright law is that it establishes where a work originated. Authorship gets lost in a lot of the things we treat as if they don't have copyrights. For example memes, or the way every MP3 of a parody song on P2P platforms ended up listing Weird Al as the artist regardless of his involvement. It also happens in cases where copyright really doesn't exist like with recipes and as a result we don't really know who first came up with many of the foods we love. A very limited copyright term would more firmly establish who we should thank for the things we enjoy. |
| |
| ▲ | awesome_dude 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | With respect - copyright's protection of income is the point That's, by design, the tool used to encourage people to invest their time into producing works. We would not be having this conversation at all if people weren't able to make money of these works - there'd be no point to copyright at all if there wasn't money to be made (by the artists) and the reproduction of their works wasn't restricting their ability to generate that income (for themselves, or their agents). I want to emphasise that I am not arguing in favour of the system, only how and why it works this way. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > That's, by design, the tool used to encourage people to invest their time into producing works. The tool used was control over distribution. If income was the point copyright law could just hand tax payer money over to anyone who created something. That'd guarantee income instead of the system we have which allows artists to invest in the creation of a work and still never make a dime on it. Ultimately though, I do see your point and I agree that making it possible to earn enough money to justify the creation, publishing, and distribution of a creative work was a large part of the intention along with the establishment of the public domain. I probably should have phrased that as "The point of copyright isn't to protect income until the work is no longer highly profitable" |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | underlipton 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If Disney had to pay the federal government a few billion each to keep absolute control over their oldest works, every year, no tax games, that would be pretty great for society. But it's also probably true that the tax games would indeed ensue. Something something low trust, we can't have nice things. |
|
