snooggums

If we addressed the core issues of people having what they need to live then copyright would no longer have a reason for existing.

If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?

I would totally join in the dancing game with my wife unless she said no, since I’m terrible at them. If so, then I would probably play retro fighting games or anything else that catches my eye.

I’m still baffled that all these wealthy fucks aren’t hopping on the environmental bandwagon when there is so much mo ey to be made completely replacing the entire infrastructure if countries.

Are they afraid to make money? Do they just not understand it and can’t see how it could be far more profitable than existing polluting industry?

But then somehow they are fine dumping their wealth into fucking AI snakeoil?

Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time 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.

You own copyright the same way you own a piece of paper that says you own a house. Someone who made a lot of money in a short time from their labor can pass on the rest to their children. Copyright spreads out the income over time by allowing exclusive income on ideas for a limited period of time. It is what allows a musician to make money from their songs without needing someone to directly pay them for writing fhe song at the time it was made.

Copyright as a concept is not horrible when applied to exclusive distribution for a short period of time, and that time period shouldn’t arbitrary end on death any more than someone should lose the house their family lives in because the person whose name is ok the deed died in an accident.

It just needs to be far shorter and companies should be changed so that the way people and companies use it. Otherwise every person would create a company, give it the Copyright, and then fhe company could be i herited.

10 years plus an option for a 10 year extension is plenty.

Copyright should only apply to other individuals and companies trying to collect income (not just profit, making any money) from copying as well. The whole original idea about protecting the creator from being easily copied was a decent idea, and really only makes sense as useful to society in that context.

And yes, I am in favor of every work of art being in the public domain within two decades. That is plenty of time to benefit from exclusivity, they can create additional art or do some kind of promotional work or something else to keep making money off the fact that they created something that deserved to be exclusive.

Inheritance

A publisher currently publishing a book when an artist dies would have one less expense as they continued to rake in the money.

People make money off of the public domain all the time. Printing bibles is a booming business and copyright on the text expired ages ago. They do get to claim copyright on all of the stuff surrounding the text, like any illustrations, introductions, covers, etc. Most early Disney movies were based on works in the public domain.

Sure, it would allow instant access to copyrighted works which is neat and all but getting it earlier because the person died earlier is a silly reason based on all artists being hermits who have no families. It also ignores all the copyrights that aren’t owned by individuals, and companies don’t get into car accidents. Why should someone who keeps their copyright be more at risk of their family losing income than a company?

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.

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.

I grew up when even digital clocks were off by a couple minutes or more because they weren’t centrally connected to something that kept them accurate. Heck, my phone and computer clocks aren’t always exactly in sync down to the second.

I prefer analogue clocks most of the time because it lets me know roughly how much time is left until something at a glance instead of needing to calculate it in my head.

I’m assuming Allie is from accounting.

Nice

Asbestos

Yeah, it should be off by default with the option to turn it on.

I would guess that most or all have already been done in some way, although I would like to see more from the comedy relief and villains minion point of view.

(25 years from now as per the article)

Anything 20 years or more away is a pipe dream that isn’t likely to happen anywhere close to speculation.

You can still do that by paying for cable.

Left out of the meme, not left out of being called to fix shit.

We truly are the middle child of generations, forgotten until we are needed.