|
>>
|
No. 13014
ID: 490921
>>13010
While >>13012 pretty much took the words right out of my mouth, I've still got some spare words I can afford to use.
>What if you could create something and protect it so that it would be a constant source of income for your family in the future? What if you could provide indirectly for the rest of your life, knowing that you obviously only have whatever time on Earth you're allotted.
Except THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF COPYRIGHT. Quoting Wikipedia's article on copyright: "Copyright was first created with the intention that authors might have some control over the printing of their work and to receive some financial recompense, so that this would encourage them to write more books and thus to aid the flow of ideas and learning."
How is having Gatsby locked up by copyrights while Fitzgerald's grandchildren sit on their ass and earn five hundred thousand dollars a year doing anything to "aid the flow of ideas and learning"?
>Fitzgerald - and more accurately Scottie (his daughter) - have established a future for their descendants where they're provided for. Scottie WON. She's achieved what so many people wish to achieve - security for their families.
At the cost of having her children worrying more about keeping their welfare che--I mean, the copyrights on Gatsby alive and well than about contributing to society and culture.
They don't have to work for their future. They don't have to create anything ever. Culture suffers for them not having to contribute to it. Sure, even if what they would create ends up being unpopular or useless, they would still have contributed to culture; as it stands, they don't have to do anything because they essentially have a yearly check for half a million dollars coming in thanks to the work of their grandfather.
>If the Great Gatsby weren't worth the paper it was printed on, you can be sure that this wouldn't be an issue ever, because the Fitzgerald offspring wouldn't be raking in cash.
I'll concede this point. You're right. But you have to remember that I (and others) are angry at this situation not because they're making money - we're angry because they're making money off of a work that was created well before they were ever born and should be public domain by now.
>So the fuck what that the grandkids had nothing to do with the creation of the book? If you leave a million dollars to your kids, they had nothing to do with that million being generated - should your kids be forced to rescind their million?
A million dollars and the copyrights to a book are two entirely different things, and don't pretend they're not.
>THE PURELY ELECTRONIC KINDLE VERSION IS MORE EXPENSIVE FOR GOD'S SAKE.
And why is that? Server space and bandwidth is cheaper than ever these days, so it can't be that. Copying a PDF doesn't take an entire printing press and hundreds of pages of paper, so it can't be that.
Maybe it's the fact that the copyright holders can determine how much to sell the book for in any form, meaning that if they think they can make more money off of a DRM-laden eBook than they can off of the print version, then that's their choice to force Amazon to charge more for it.
If the book was in the public domain, anyone could legally distribute an eBook version of the book for free. People could download the book from any website that offered it without fear of violating copyrights and/or risking the wrath of a lawsuit from Fitzgerald's family/estate. More people could get their hands on the book than ever before, and they could potentially become inspired by the book and create their own works - works that might never had existed had they not read the book.
>Of course you think this; you agree with them.
There have been Techdirt commenters who've had viewpoints that have opposed mine that have made rather insightful comments - comments which have gotten me to stop and think about my own viewpoints - so I'm not just lumping those I agree with into that statement. And sometimes, even those I do agree with can make a boneheaded statement every once in a while. We're only human, after all.
>I fundamentally reject the idea that once someone dies that their creations should no longer benefit their family members.
You're rejecting the idea for purely emotional reasons, and you know it.
>it's equally selfish to say "well, your parent / grandparent / etc was awesome, but you don't get any benefit from it because they're dead."
If an artist makes a fair amount of money off of a work, then pass those earnings on to their children/family members following their death, then that's not an issue. He made the money, he can do whatever he wants with it.
Copyright isn't a tangible item; it's akin to a social contract. In its original form, the "contract" essentially said "you get to control how copies of your work are distributed for so many years, and in return, you will be fairly compensated for your work"; once the contract expired, be it by the term's length running its course or the artist dying, the works fell into the public domain. Nowadays, that "contract" has become tangled and twisted by so many extensions and changes to copyright law that a single copyright term can last for upwards of two lifetimes (the lifetime of the artist and seventy years beyond their death) and can let someone profit off of works they didn't have a hand in creating (using copyright as a welfare check), all while making sure information and culture don't enter the public domain until long after the original artist has been fairly compensated for their works.
>I know you think copyright needs reform, but what many of these people want is a destruction of copyright protection.
You would be wrong. Nobody but the most fringe elements of the argument against copyright expansion are saying copyright should be abolished. Copyright is important in allowing artists to be properly compensated for their work.
But in the same vein, the ridiculous nature of copyright law as it stands today means that people can profit off of works they had no hand in creating and that those same people can prevent others from freely using/distributing a work that is almost a century old. This is the sort of thing people in favor of copyright reform are against.
>Many of these people advocate that everything should be free and clear and at no cost to them because once it exists, it's public domain.
To be fair, given that we exist in the Digital Age, where copying a digital file is as simple, inexpensive, and quick as the drag-and-drop function on a PC, is it any surprise that some people feel that way?
>I'm sure some of these people are butthurt by going to the grocery store and having to buy fruit.
Well, that sounds like a personal problem for them.
>They didn't do a damn thing. Who the fuck cares? They're his family and they should be able to reap the benefit of the work. Congratulations to them.
Would you still be on the side of the people making money from Gatsby long after Fitzgerald's death if those people weren't his family, but the family of a person Fitzgerald left his copyrights to that had absolutely no role in the creation of Gatsby (a close friend, for example)?
>A better system would be for the musicians to license their music through multiple labels who each print the CDs; whoever has the lowest-cost label will get the business, so the price competition will ensue.
I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing over the finer points of business and the RIAA and all that jazz, because I'm sick and I don't feel up to it. All I'll say on the issue is this: the artists should control distribution of their works, not record labels, and given the ease with which music can be shared today, record labels that cannot adapt to the Digital Age are becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway.
|