There’s no reason IN THE WORLD for any kind of idea of “intellectual property” to exist once the creator is dead.
NONE.
It doesn’t benefit the creator in any way to have such a system where people can claim ownership of another’s work after death. All that does is deny the living things that could help them in favor of some ridiculous notion that you’re helping the dead; it’s asinine.
Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
That’s not «the benefits of labour» being passed on to your children, is it? That’s what you own being passed on to your children… And it’s taxed! Maybe it would be a good idea to have taxes on inherited IP, though. Then again, if the taxes are at or above 50% then wouldn’t that mean that the state would inherit control over the IP, hence making it public domain? Meh. That would be an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax, technically, I think. How would you pay taxes on inheriting an IP?
You own copyright the same way you own a piece of paper that says you own a house. Someone who made a lot of money in a short time from their labor can pass on the rest to their children. Copyright spreads out the income over time by allowing exclusive income on ideas for a limited period of time. It is what allows a musician to make money from their songs without needing someone to directly pay them for writing fhe song at the time it was made.
Copyright as a concept is not horrible when applied to exclusive distribution for a short period of time, and that time period shouldn’t arbitrary end on death any more than someone should lose the house their family lives in because the person whose name is ok the deed died in an accident.
It just needs to be far shorter and companies should be changed so that the way people and companies use it. Otherwise every person would create a company, give it the Copyright, and then fhe company could be i herited.
That is the BARE MINIMUM of reason.
There’s no reason IN THE WORLD for any kind of idea of “intellectual property” to exist once the creator is dead.
NONE.
It doesn’t benefit the creator in any way to have such a system where people can claim ownership of another’s work after death. All that does is deny the living things that could help them in favor of some ridiculous notion that you’re helping the dead; it’s asinine.
Minor children of artists benefitting from their parents work is one possible reason. Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?
It should be short enough that the child of an artist shouldn’t be benefitting for decades, but there are cases where an untimely death would screw over the artist’s family and allow the publisher to make all the money themselves.
The current setup is awful, but there should be at least a period of time after their death for rights to be inherited that is no longer or possibly shorter, than a reasonable time frame like a decade or two.
Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It’s not justified.
In this example, the child is living, and has needs.
In the perfect world, the kids should have UBI regardless on if their parents are authors. But yes the kids should be inheriting the remainder of the fixed-term copyright.
So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.
What terrible priorities.
Why should the benefits of my labor not pass on to my children just because it’s a creative work?
Because the benefits of labour don’t pass on to your children, period?
Maybe there’s something out there I’m unaware of, but I don’t understand the implication in your question.
Inheritance
That’s not «the benefits of labour» being passed on to your children, is it? That’s what you own being passed on to your children… And it’s taxed! Maybe it would be a good idea to have taxes on inherited IP, though. Then again, if the taxes are at or above 50% then wouldn’t that mean that the state would inherit control over the IP, hence making it public domain? Meh. That would be an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax, technically, I think. How would you pay taxes on inheriting an IP?
You own copyright the same way you own a piece of paper that says you own a house. Someone who made a lot of money in a short time from their labor can pass on the rest to their children. Copyright spreads out the income over time by allowing exclusive income on ideas for a limited period of time. It is what allows a musician to make money from their songs without needing someone to directly pay them for writing fhe song at the time it was made.
Copyright as a concept is not horrible when applied to exclusive distribution for a short period of time, and that time period shouldn’t arbitrary end on death any more than someone should lose the house their family lives in because the person whose name is ok the deed died in an accident.
It just needs to be far shorter and companies should be changed so that the way people and companies use it. Otherwise every person would create a company, give it the Copyright, and then fhe company could be i herited.