Do you think this is a bad thing or a good thing? Because if Ford and Toyota could use you invention without paying GM, GM could use it without paying you. If you signed an exclusive agreement with GM, you should have gotten a premium for forgoing revenue from other manufacturers.
And if you knew GM or Ford or Toyota would be free to use your invention without compensating you, you probably wouldn’t spend the money to invent it in the first place. Not many inventions are done in garages these days - or at least not significant ones.
I’m saying it is a thing. I was responding to a post which suggested other companies could use a patented invention.
But are we looking at the cause or the effect?
Do books that are presented through publishing companies generally sell better than self-published books because of the work done by the publishing companies? Or is it that publishing companies only work with authors who produce more salable work to start with?
Future value is valued in present dollars. Remember, copyright interests are treated as being economic goods. They are designed to be licensed, sold, etc. Thus, whatever number of years in the future that the creator might forego after death can be monetized in the present.
It’s generally a combination. Authors want to sign with major publishing houses, because they will spend money to promote a book, making its success more likely.
This is the trade-off that patent protection is exactly calculated to make.
(1) The government gives you a narrow but deep monopoly over practicing a patent for 20 years. It encourages you to pursue your invention, it helps fund your skill development and inventing activities, and it incentvizes you to commercialize your invention, allowing end users to benefit.
(2) In exchange, you must disclose all the particulars of your invention, for researchers, scientists, developers, engineers, and competitors to be able to see exactly what you know and exactly how your invention works. They can use that knowledge to do further research and develop new technologies. In the modern world of high technology, those competitors are going to come up with a superior invention long before your patent protection runs out.
You can argue that the exact parameters of the protection might require fine-tuning (is 20 years the right length? What exceptions should we create to exclusive rights? etc.). But I don’t think there’s a credible argument that the above balance is fundamentally untrue.
That’s all true, but none of it makes up for lost value due to a shorter copyright term.
This commodification of a copyright seems to me to be another good argument for a fixed period rather than one based on the author’s lifetime. It makes what’s being sold a known quantity. And why should a copyright be affected by when somebody who no longer owns it dies? That’s like saying you should pay a special tax when the guy you bought your house from dies.
We are balancing an economic right in a commodity with a moral right of a creator. I think it’s a pretty good compromise. The fact that it’s not rigidly consistent in every individual case doesn’t bother me. A formula like life-plus-50 or life-plus-70 adequately irons out most of the supposed inequalities.
I’m no expert on copyright, but are you confusing copyright with publishing rights? Isn’t it more typical for an author/creator (unless they’re doing “work for hire”) to retailn the copyright but sell/transfer publishing rights?
A lot of that is probably historical legacy from the days when getting an artist wide distribution took literal manufacturing capability as well as significant distribution, marketing and licensing capability. In other words, if you were an unknown Elvis in the 1950s, it took a small army to get your records recorded, pressed, distributed, publicized and marketed to a large audience.
Today it’s a bit different, in that it’s possible for smaller artists to do it themselves, but once their popularity gets above a certain scale, I suspect that it’s actually MORE lucrative to start hiring people to do those jobs, rather than try to do them yourself.
Maybe the right analogy is more of a military one, where for every soldier fighting, there’s a logistical tail several multiples larger supporting his ability to do so. Could he fight with a much smaller tail? Sure, and it would be cheaper. But can he (and his fellow soldiers) fight as effectively or for as long without that tail? Probably not. I suspect it’s the same with artists- they have what amounts to a logistical tail, not some sort of parasitic administrative apparatus.
This whole morality of copyright doesn’t sit right with me. It’s all money, all the way down. Creators don’t want long copyright because they want to control who gets to use their creation. They want long copyright because they want to profit by controlling who gets to use their creation.
Give creators, and their descendants, perpetual, iron-clad, but non-transferable non-saleable non-monetizable control over the use of their IP, and then ask if they’d trade that in for 14 years of sellable rights. The morality isn’t that someone is using a creator’s work without their permission, it’s that they’re not giving the creator their cut.
On average? Naah, the reality TV industry drags that quality curve way the hell over to mediocrity. That’s your quantity problem - a little more quality might be produced, but so much dreck as well that it overwhelms the good stuff.
And IMO, when it comes to quality, the a lot of the best stuff is definitely not coming out of American studios in that regard. It’s coming out of the UK, which has a different production model, or it’s coming out of Europe, or it’s coming out of other countries.
Exactly. I’m still not clear on what the argument is for why someone who writes a story has a moral right to economic exclusivity for 100+ years, but someone who designs a better widget only has a moral right to 20 years of money.
None of these are natural rights. Inventions used to just get copied by anyone who encountered them. Stories used to just be retold, and songs re-sung. They’re all modern economic and legal frameworks intended to increase productivity.
Every time the copyright term has been extended, it was not because there was a societal understanding that creators had a larger moral right; it was because monied interests lobbied for more money for themselves.
Why would you look at the average? If the goal is to promote great art, it doesn’t matter if there’s also bad art being created.
Publishing rights (that is, the distribution right and the duplication right) are among the rights of a copyright owner.
The argument presented is that the American creative industries as a whole are empowering creatives to “create best”. So of course you want to look at total output. The odd Rebecca Sugar does not compensate for that system foisting Real Housewives on us, I’m afraid.
Yes, you do have to look at the bad art. Because my thesis is that the corporate creative industry encourages more of it.
It’s not “all money, all the way down,” exclusively. Creative expression is very complex and very personal. You see creators all the time getting upset when someone does something to their stories, even people they are in contract with. Yes, they want money, but they also want more.
As I said, if I create a setting and characters, I don’t want anyone to mess with those characters without my permission while I live. That’s a very common feeling of artists. And many artists want to preserve the integrity of their works past their deaths.
That’s why estates not only manage economic matters, but also often heavily police the ways new uses might change their creations. Visual artists most often don’t tolerate any alteration of their works, even in derivative uses.
Creative expression is very personal and tied to a person’s identity and personality. Giving “life-plus” control is absolutely justifiable as a moral matter. (“Moral” here as used in the phrase “moral rights.”)
That doesn’t seem to be what you’re arguing here.
You’re saying there are fewer great works. So we should judge the system by how much great work it produces, not how much mediocrity.
If the financial system of creative production we have results in a 10000000X increase in output and only 2x increase in great works, that’s a win, even if the average quality is fairly bad.
I think it’s undeniable that there’s a lot more bad art out there due to financial incentives. I think it’s also true that there’s a lot more great art out there, and that’s a boon to society. We shouldn’t be willing to give up a single masterpiece to get rid of tons of dreck.
That argument only works if any consumer can reliably sift dreck from great, and I don’t think they can. The bad drives out the good.
As an individual consumer of creative output, I don’t care that there may in abstract be more absolute numbers of allegedly great works produced. I care about my subjective perception of the output. And if I can only survey 10000x the work I could before - do the maths on the proportion of great works I’m going to see in a quantity-based system. I make it 0.005% of what I’d see without it. Or 0.002, I’m not sure I’m doing it right…