Ayiekie Wrote:Why should an artist who isn't creating new works not get paid for it if people are still paying for and enjoying the work they did create? Did they somehow magically not create it anymore after five years and no longer deserve recompensation?
I put that in my stuff about the social contract but let me be more clear. It goes against of the purpose of copyright to make more. If an artist is good we want to encourage them to make more, not retire after one album. There are other reasons but that is one of the big ones.
Ayiekie Wrote:I believe copyright should be until death-of-the-creator plus 25 years (the latter number is negotiable but 25 years is as good as any). It seems reasonable and fair. People in many other fields not only profit from their endeavours through their lifetimes, but can leave the fruit of their endeavours to their children. I do not see why artists should be treated differently. I certainly don't think the rights of people who didn't create anything should outweigh the rights of those who did. Any artist who feels differently is free to release their work into the public domain - the vast majority do not, of course.
Yes my children are entitled to my wages after I die. wait what, that isn't right.
Let me try again, artist are paid for their work essentially forever, I don't see why we should stop paying a bridge builder as long as the bridge is still in use.
You can leave the money you earned to your children, and the 7 houses, but not your job, unless it is a family business, in which case you don't leave the job so much as your possessions which allow you to do the job. Why are artist treated differently?*
*well in some cases you do leave the job to your childern, for-instance if you are the king and die your job passes to your child... but that is a bit of an exception, most jobs don't do that.
Anyway by that argument copyright should extend into infinity since once the artist created it it doesn't somehow switch creators at any arbitrary later date. That is why some people argue the right to be credited for a work should be separate from copyright, and I agree.
Remix culture isn't new, it's how the Arthurian legends where made, which would be impossible with copyright. In fact that used to be the default for human creativity, and it can be convincingly argued that it still is, just obfuscated due to legal necessities.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."