Comments on: How To Crack The Facade In Any Copyright Monopoly Discussion

By: cmunky

cmunky — Sat, 17 May 2014 09:49:00 +0000

The first premise of this article would be correct EXCEPT for the existence of ASCAP , BMI and GEMA. I only have to look at the quarterly royalty statements that are my complete livelihood to see proof that copyright DOES support artists.
The second premise of the article is absolutely correct. Extending copyright past the creators lifetime is ludicrous . How does that sustain the creative community?
When we mourn the passing of an artist we should be able to celebrate the passage of their works into the public domain.

By: Bovski

Bovski — Fri, 16 May 2014 15:41:00 +0000

What happens with movies they are created by studio’s not individuals so does their copyright run out 70 years after the studio has gone bankrupt or last forever if it doesn’t.

Copyright was brought in for books and we have libraries where we can access these books for free.
Where are the free Cinemas in these libraries if the Movie industry wants to use the same copyright laws for themselves.

By: Don Reba

Don Reba — Wed, 14 May 2014 19:02:00 +0000

The natural reply would be that the ability to provide for their children motivates artists.

By: Scary_Devil_Monastery

Scary_Devil_Monastery — Mon, 12 May 2014 09:46:00 +0000

Whatever the rule was “about” makes little difference. The real effect today is that copyright after death extensions helps only the vested party with hte biggest group of lawyers.

Assuming your parent wrote or created a major hit the first thing which will happen is that you, trying to claim legal protection, will find a nice letter in your mailbox telling you to play nice or risk ruining your children’s lives in court. Courtesy of the local copyright cult.

And trying to stand up for your rights will mean you waste the next five-ten years of your life doing nothing other than fighting. At the end of which, if you are lucky, you may be paid half of what you expended in defending your rights.

Copyright is a con game. Anyone thinking it’s “for the artists” hasn’t listened how that’s worked out for every artist who actually struck gold.

By: Miami Sunset

Miami Sunset — Thu, 08 May 2014 13:11:00 +0000

The rule isn’t about forcing the public to pay for content after the
author’s death. It’s to prevent publishers from taking the material and
publishing it without paying royalties. Imagine if your mother wrote a novel but it wasn’t published before her death. Then a publisher comes along and publishes it, makes tons of money, and your family gets nothing for it.

The fact is that most inheritors get little to no money from after death royalties. In most cases the only money the writer sees is from the advance and that’s it. J.K. Rowlings is the exception, not the rule.

And as far as “writing after death”, while it’s true that a writer can’t write after death, they may have unpublished material that may not get published until after their death. The family should be able to make some money from that material, because the publisher certainly will.

By: tetridae

tetridae — Wed, 07 May 2014 10:13:00 +0000

Most artists would be just fine with an outright abolishment of Copyright, but it would not be very pragmatic, because some people still in the work-force have invested in careers related to handling copy-rights.

Maybe a slow abolishment, reducing the copyright by 15-20 years every 5 years or something will give people time to adapt to the new rules. Putting people from high paying wages (usually upper middle class) out of work just over night is not going to help anyone.

By: tetridae

tetridae — Wed, 07 May 2014 10:07:00 +0000

Exactly. If the law is too protectionist and monopolistic, people and businesses start “voting with their feet”… People in Eastern Europe and Germany also know this, they’ve seen it in very close proximity in the second half of the 20th century.

By: tetridae

tetridae — Wed, 07 May 2014 10:05:00 +0000

And the illusion that “intellectual property” becomes “property” just because you call it that.

People don’t buy that anymore. Intellectual Protectionism is something that restrict my property rights.

I buy a piece of equipment or information stored on a media, if I’m not allowed to do anything with it – then it isn’t my “property” and I haven’t “bought” it.

Intellectual Protectionism is a restriction of property rights.

By: tetridae

tetridae — Wed, 07 May 2014 10:01:00 +0000

“And yet it survives and thrives and makes commercial rightsholders and the estates of artists wealthy.”

They spend rediculous amounts on lobbying and still make ends meet? That’s an argument to abolish it right away. It just shows how inefficient it is and how it robs the customers, compared to if there was not a monopoly.

The money they get is used to punish / persecute the same customers who give it to them? Of course that is not going to last…

By: tetridae

tetridae — Wed, 07 May 2014 09:45:00 +0000

“Throughout history it’s been known that where creating and art is concerned many are called and few chosen. Out of a thousand aspiring artists, only one will make it.”

They need a few who actually “make it” to trick people into thinking that they have a chance. The same psychology as that of gambling. Just make sure theres a carefully weighted mixture of personalities so everyone has at least one “successful artist” to emphasise with ( spelling? ).

I had a high school teacher once who used to say “the exception which confirms the rule”. Sounded very strange and illogical to me at the time, but now it makes perfect sense. There are so many psychological tricks to manipulate people in this world and the sooner you learn them, the better…

“Many artists, for some reason, feel they should be exempted this.”

Of course … it is not even the artists who lose out on copyright abolishment – it’s the publishers. Copying is free PR. A free way to get fans. A hobby version of “publishing”.

There are talent-less people in suits being fed far better than the artists by copyright. They are the ones who have something to be afraid of when comes to copyright reform and file sharing.