[ SECRET POST #5561 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5561 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #797.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. https://i.imgur.com/2LtKgJf.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

So you're anti-inheritance too, right? Because you didn't earn it?

If an author left the rights to their family, why is that a bad thing? People in other professions do that all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

Right? The people holding the rights after an author's death aren't usually some randos.

[(Anonymous)]

Not OP but, while I'm not anti-inheritance and I don't have a problem with leaving the rights to the family, I think leaving the rights to the family *for 70 years* is absurd. It's clearly too long of a protected period. And I think in practice, the law acts much more to the benefit of large corporate rights holders than it does to the benefit of the actual families of actual creators. US copyright law is bad.

[(Anonymous)]

Why is leaving the rights to the family for 70 years absurd? I’m just asking why you specifically think it is, not trying to agree or disagree one way or the other.

But yes, US copyright law is indeed bad.

[dantesspirit]

70 yrs is copyright law standard, not something the family arbitrarily decides, until the period ends. They have every right to protect a work created by a loved one, or to sell it for whatever they deem it's worth if they so choose.

While yes, Title 17 needs updating, that doesn't mean it's outright bad.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that's quite the same thing - if the author made a lot of money from the creative work in their lifetime and left that money to their family, OP doesn't sound like that'd have a problem with that.

Sounds more like their main reason for buying a work is to support the author, and once the author is dead, there's no author to support, and their reason for not pirating is gone.

[(Anonymous)]

It’s not quite the same thing, but it’s not wholly distinct either.

OP doesn’t sound like they wouldn’t have a problem with it either, because they didn’t bring up families of deceased authors or family estate copyright anywhere in their secret. The fact that they never brought it up, and treated it like the only people that benefit off an author’s works after the author dies is the predatory publishing system and “whoever now holds the rights to something they didn’t create” means that I don’t know why you seem so sure OP would be fine or not with paying in the case of the money going to the the surviving family.

Honestly, the way they phrase “whoever now holds the rights to something they didn’t create”, and the fact that they put that right next to predatory publishing industry makes it seem like they very well might be against the family getting the money. Considering the family didn’t create the books, and OP seems to think that’s the be all end all to who should get the money. And they’re not wrong in thinking that when it comes to the publishing industry, and how probably shouldn’t get money from works they didn’t create once the author is dead. But comparing surviving family members to predatory business people, even if it may have been accidentally implied? I’m not a fan of that phrasing.

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP but yes I am, to a point. And the point is where large estates should be taxed heavily as a major contributor to entrenched inequality. But it will never get voted on because the prime voters are 50+ and want to leave their small estates to their children/grandchildren, and the very rich bank on that with their advertising scares, meaning they'll get to pass obscene amounts of money to their children.

This is very unlikely to apply to your average author, but there are some who would be affected. Also public domain should be after the death of the author plus 20 years.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean. editors and typesetters and so on need to eat as well, and your favorite books would not exist in their current form or have reached you without them. most publishing houses operate on quite thin margins. not every company is disney.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really understand this argument. Wouldn't this logic argue against any books ever entering the public domain?

[(Anonymous)]

This.

[meadowphoenix]

I think this muddles the issue. usually publishing houses doesn't necessarily have publishing rights that last as long as the copyright unless the author sold their rights completely (which makes me wonder if OP pirates when that's the case). OP could be pirating a version that was from the publishing companies who no longer have the rights, or versions for which the publishing rights have now lapsed, in which case OP isn't trangressing against those editors and typesetters.

I think your position also implies that the editors and typesetters involved in OP's favorite books would still be employed by the publishing house years after an authors death and you know, I don't think that's a reasonable premise, I think the publishing business is actually too shitty for that to be likely.

[(Anonymous)]

I see your point, for the most part, but what about when their work is still supporting their (non-adult) children?

[(Anonymous)]

Can't you just check the books out of the library? Or are they just not available there?

[(Anonymous)]

Ah yes, fuck those widows and children and also all those people who worked closely with your favorite author and are probably deeply saddened by their loss.

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP, but when I encounter works by authors who have passed away... they more often than not died quite some time ago. This wouldn't really apply.

[(Anonymous)]

If an author wrote a book in 1970 and then died soon after, their children are over 50.

My dad died when I was a kid and I don't get royalties from the people who walk on all the sidewalks he poured.

[(Anonymous)]

The other two commenters above are using such a bad faith reading of your comment. Of course it’s different if it’s almost old enough to enter the public domain, you didn’t say anything to indicate anything against that. But just because some books have had authors pass away decades ago, and all the children are grown adults, doesn’t mean that’s every case. Some authors have died recently, and have young children. OP doesn’t even consider that scenario, and that’s all you were pointing out.

This should be obvious to anyone not looking to willfully misinterpret you in order to spout their bad take of “what about authors that died a long time ago with adult children?”. What about them? They aren’t the ones being directly talked about in your comment. But that doesn’t mean they’re being ignored in by it either. And OP already seems to think every author who’s deceased while not being in the public domain is an author that died decades ago, so what’s the point in bringing that scenario up as if it’s a new take that will blow anyone’s mind in response to you? I swear, this place sometimes...

[(Anonymous)]

I am astonished at the thought that goes into people's purchasing choices, every day.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like this level of thought has been around for the last 30 years or so but that the internet has made it more visible.

[dantesspirit]

Generally when an author dies, their estate gains control, which means *descendants of said author*.

So, essentially what you're saying is, the author's spouse or kids, etc, don't deserve the royalties, which basically are inheritance.

Do you feel the same about other ways people inherit things too, or just books in particular?

Because that's a really odd way to look at inheritance- 'You didn't create/earn it, you don't deserve it.'

[(Anonymous)]

All of this!

[(Anonymous)]

The point of copyright is to help a creator make a living off their work so they can, if they're good (and lucky) create more works. See also the comments above about the benefits of the public domain.

The child(ren) of the author are not the creators of the work and are not producing more of the same, so in principle, copyright ownership is wasted on them. (And then there's children like Todd McCaffrey who do create in the parent's sandbox...badly. But what's more nepotism and trust fund baby types in the world who get money and access by being descended from someone when their own merits would get them nowhere?)

[(Anonymous)]

Anyone who thinks the fiction publishing industry is "predatory" is grossly uninformed and their opinions are nothing but self-serving lies.