Perhaps they should get a pension from the state if the only reason that they are destitute, which was the point made previously, is because they are poor. This doesn’t require people to become financial planners. How much richer should you be then a person who doesn’t get money from the copyright works? How much money should they get? I think they should get enough to live reasonably well, which is a difficult value judgment that were are forced to make. I’m sure since they never made any copywritten work to live off of they should be given just enough that don’t starve, according to you. IMO they should be given enough that most reasonable people don’t consider copyright a good solution to poverty among the elderly.
How do you know nobody in the thread wants that? Can you read their minds? At least one person in the thread wants copyright to be at minimum, the life of the author. Then the question becomes, when people live longer and longer, when does this principle of ‘life of the author’, stop? Since surely it must stop at some point, which means “life of the author” is not a good metric. Maybe the 50 something years that someone else suggested would be good. Definitely better than “life of the author” (or life + some years).
I would absolutely prefer a robust social safety net with healthcare for all as a right, humane long term care provisions, and support systems to make sure no one winds up homeless and starving… but that is not the society I currently live in. So, absent a civilized and humane society I would permit creators to retain control and income from their creations for the duration of their lives so they don’t wind up homeless and starving.
My option is second-best (and that’s being generous) compared to yours, but it’s also a more likely option to actually occur in the country where I live.
This is reasonable. Thank you.
Have you heard of Sturgeon’s Law?
Yes, some good stuff has come out of Kickstarter and Patreon. So has a lot of crap.
…a pension from the state won’t help if the old person has massive debts which get paid from the limited amount of money provided by the state.
But being a financial planner would have helped stop the old person getting into debt.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense. Can you reword it?
Why are we forced to make value judgements?
Why are you making value judgements?
Why make the state pay a pension when the current system allows for content creators to make money from the content they create? What is it you are wanting to change?
Please don’t use statements like “according to you” when I’ve said nothing of the sort.
Because if people had wanted that they would have asked for that. Because your thought experiment involved imagining a life expectancy of thousands of years, and most reasonable people have zero expectation of that happening.
I can read the thread. Can you see anyone here demanding to live for thousands of years?
Do you understand the difference between the life of the author and the life of the author extended for an impossible length of time?
Do you understand that in most places in the world this is the status quo?
Why is this what the question becomes? Its not anything anyone would have to worry about ever. We aren’t going to be living for thousands of years. Not within our lifetimes, our childrens lifetimes, or their children and their children and their children and their children and their children and their children’s lifetimes at least. Its a pointless thought experiment.
Its a perfectly fine metric. Ignoring pointless thought experiments for a minute: what is wrong with it?
I said “for the life of the creator”. YOU are the one adding “plus X years”. Let’s be clear on that. If someone writes an amazing novel at 20 and lives to 90 why should copyright extend beyond their death?
Maybe we could compromise - create something and you get copyright for life, but if you die before 25 years are up from the creation of that work your estate retains rights for the balance of those 25 years which, in my mind, is extremely generous and allows for the raising of minor children and for adult heirs securing another form of income before that shuts off. So works will enter copyright between 25 and (let’s be extremely generous based on current human lifespans) 100 years at most and most likely much, much sooner because damn few people would live that long.
Corporations get 40. No extensions.
Work-for-hire remains as is - someone hires you to create something to their specifications and that person (or corporation) retains the rights. For 40 years. No extensions. High-end artists might be able to negotiate for additional rights in a work-for-hire situation just as they can now.
Maybe in the current society we live in with relatively short life expectancies I can perhaps accept it. What is absolutely not reasonable, IMO, is extending it beyond the life of the author.
But what should be done about copyright that is held buy people that have no risk of ever being destitute? How much money should a copyright holder be allowed to profit from their work beyond any reasonble level of comfort? Is ANY amount gained from such things okay? I don’t know but it feels any additional benefits to the author will be at some point too meaningles (e.g. can’t buy their 7th yacht) compared to the benefit to the society as a whole when the work is in the public domain.
I got very protective of my copyright when someone took my work, put their name at the top, and sold it to someone else claiming it was their work and they got money it for it. They stole my work and profited from it.
If you feel queasy about the creator getting paid how do you feel about someone else stealing the work and getting the money?
As it happens, once true ownership was established I got an apology from the publisher, the money I should have gotten in the first place (meaning the publisher wound up paying twice for the work), and then asked to write a monthly column for awhile. For pay. So in the end it worked out, largely because the publisher and I sat down and worked things out peaceably rather than going right for the lawyers. But absolutely it was current copyright law that gave me the legal position from which bargain.
Yes, I do want to profit from my work. Why? Because I have rent to pay, food to buy and so forth. That’s no different from anyone else wanting to get paid for their work. Saying “if you want to copy my book/show my movie/play my music you need to pay a fee” is not inherently unreasonable - as long as the fees aren’t prohibitive. It’s not that much different from saying “if you want me to change the oil in your vehicle you need to pay me X amount”. If you don’t want to pay me to change your oil you can do it yourself. If you don’t want to buy my novel, or pay a royalty on my music, you can write your own book or learn to produce your own music. The thing is - specialists tend to do their specialty better and faster than non-specialists. I will never be the musician that, say, Paul McCartney is, so I’m happy to pay a small fee to have his music available to me for my own enjoyment.
You’re corporitist! Corporations are people! 
No but seriosuly I agree with this.
This is true, but it is only a negative if the distributors are engaging in price gouging or anything that manipulates the market and cheats the public. Distributors actually perform a useful and necessary service by getting the product from the idea stage to the store shelves, so to speak.
Let’s say I have a brain storm and invent an all new self-adjusting low maintenance widget. It’s much easier for me to sign a deal with a distributor who has an infrastructure and marketing experience than it is for me to try to learn how to do all that myself which, let’s face it, would be a daunting task in and of itself. That leaves me free to work on other new ideas instead.
If we’re debating the morality of copyright, allow me to enter into the conversation the extreme selfishness of demanding complete control over a work you presented to the world. The height of the creative arts isn’t confined to the artist, it intends to change the world, change thought, change the emotional state of the people who experience it.
I absolutely guarantee there are 50,000 people with identity and personality more closely tied to Star Trek than any person involved in its creation, including Gene Roddenberry. Yet if they so much as write a short story set in that world, they can expect to be sued. How selfish is it to look over a convention center filled with people dressed as Klingons and Vulcans, people who built these costumes with their own hands because of their love of Star Trek, and say that “Star Trek belongs to ME.”
…why is this absolutely not reasonable?
Is this a problem?
An issue that society needs to fix?
I’m a content creator. I’m probably not at risk of being destitute. What is it exactly do you want to do to my intellectual property rights? Can you be a bit specific?
Because I’m perfectly happy with how things are right now thanks.
Ummm, yes?
Do you want to take away my ability to profit from my work?
Except most content creators aren’t buying yachts.
I’m a humble photographer trying to make a living and intellectual property rights allows me to do so. There are millions of content creators just like me all around the world. I’m more than open to suggestions for a better system of intellectual property rights. But you are doing a really bad job of selling me on your plan.
Amen.
J.K. Rowling went from being on the public dole to a billionaire due to the Harry Potter series. Is that the sort of situation you’re looking at?
First of all, if a creative work is so popular that the creator gets rich (let’s assume a reasonable price/access for the work - the Harry Potter books, for example, were within most peoples’ budgets, they were available at libraries, etc. so Rowling earned a crap ton of money without charging exorbitant rates for her work) why is that a problem?
Sure, a blockbuster Marvel movie makes a crapton of money - it also employs hundreds of people in its production so it’s not like someone is burying all that money in the box in the backyard.
Why don’t I seem to hear this argument about, oh, trial lawyers, or financial advisors, or some other highly paid work?
If you do feel their should be a cap on wealth do it via progressive tax rates that apply to everyone making above a certain amount. Maybe you could use the resulting input to the government to fund a robust safety net for society.
The truth is MOST creators are never going to get rich enough to worry about making that much money.
FTR, I am completely supportive of the concept of copyright, as a way to ensure that creators get paid for their work. I see copyright as a way to “promote the useful arts” and not a way to protect creators from the horrors of seeing their work used without their permission.
…can I introduce you to the world of fan fiction?
https://www.fanfiction.net/movie/Star-Trek-2009/
You can write a short story set in that world and not expect to get sued. Fans have even made short films based in the Star Trek universe and not gotten sued. The studios could sue if they wanted to. But the general premise of your statement doesn’t really match up to how it works in the real world.
What will get you sued though is if you try to profit from that short story of that film, or even if you announce you intend to profit from that short story or film.
You’re probably right. Clearly I’m way in over my head, so I’ll admit defeat. I mean this sincerely. I was way too worked about this. My apollogies to anyone and everyone.
…no need for that 
You’ve got nothing to apologise for. Nothing better than a Great Debate before I got to bed! I get what you are saying. But if you want to upend the system it needs to be able to work for people like me. Thats all I’m really saying 
Hasbro sent a cease and desist letter to a group that were making a completely free and and fan made fighting game based off of My Little Pony, so no, you are not entirely correct.