Sure! So i'm willing to compromise on "life of the author".
-
-
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect and
(I mean, lots of authors -- even important and famous ones! -- ALREADY live in dire poverty, and having the rights to their work doesn't help a damn bit. One, a dearly beloved and brilliant author in his 80s, is a friend of mine.)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Having the right does actually help, since now, unlike in the 19th century, nobody can casually make a stage version of UNCLE TOM'S CABIN that is pro-slavery and that becomes more popular than the novel.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @NMamatas @iridienne and
And the reality is that some people only keep producing despite the poverty in the hope that their surviving spouse and children will benefit. Jim Thompson comes immediately to mind (and it worked)!
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @NMamatas @iridienne and
Frankly, the discussion around shrinking the copyright term is just like the discussion against raising the minimum wage. The poors are still gonna be poor, but what about the rich people who might need to spend a few more bucks for get their megacorps running?
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Believe it or not, i really am actually concerned about the commons. I don't think it's reasonable or fair to *the entire rest of society* to have all the "IP" locked up for literal generations after people keel over.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Copyright doesn't "lock." One, because most rights can be had very inexpensively, two, because of significant fair use provisions that other types of IP don't have. To the extent that fair use has been weakened, that's megacorps at work, not copyright holders.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @NMamatas @iridienne and
I mean those fair use provisions have been expanded beyond their intended scope because they’re duct taping the whole system together so it can still function despite effectively perpetual copyright terms
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
"Long copyright terms + expansive fair use" really does seem like the consensus, such as it is, of what everyone thinks the law currently says and what most ordinary people think it should say
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Cybren and
The problem is as soon as you specifically try to define fair use you open what appears to be a can of worms but is actually a portable gateway to the Nether Realm of Ravenous Worms Beyond Number
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
But if you ask most people what they think I think you'd get a consensus that "You should be able to do anything you want with a book right away as long as you're not cheating the author's right to make a living from it, which they should have as long as humanly possible"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @NMamatas and
And while we’re at it if I’m buying a license to use the software and not ownership over the individual copy of software that should be transferrable to all platforms!!!!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.