[ SECRET POST #5708 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5708 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.



__________________________________________________



12.



__________________________________________________



13.



__________________________________________________



14.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 58 secrets from Secret Submission Post #817 .
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

[(Anonymous)]

And for creators who are still alive? Why shouldn't they be able to get paid for their work?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't agree with OP (my preferred copyright term would be life-of-creator + 20) but a 20 year copyright does still allow creators to monetize their work for 20 years.

[(Anonymous)]

Life + 20 is better, but creators still deserve better, considering how shaky their industries are.

[(Anonymous)]

Deserve better than life + 20? I don't agree. I think there's a clear-cut interest in making work public domain. Excessive copyright has real tangible negative effects. And I just don't think that the interest of an author after life + 20 is sufficiently robust to outweigh that.

Moreover: if you want to improve the entertainment industry, you have ways to do that besides just copyright policy. Copyright policy can't and shouldn't be used to remedy every shitty thing about the entertainment industry. For example vigorous antitrust and labor action would probably be much more effective in preserving the interests of creators than overwhelmingly long copyright terms.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry for not being clear. I meant "better in general". The way most authors are paid (i.e. authors who aren't Stephen King or JK Rowling) is pretty pitiful and I don't think most people realize that. They see books on shelves and think the author's "made it".

[(Anonymous)]

This. It's only a tiny, tiny fraction of creators who go on to make huge amounts of money off their work.

[(Anonymous)]

You can still monetize after 20 years, just not exclusively. People sell books in the public domain all the time.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not like they're getting paid for their work now. See HBO BS.

[(Anonymous)]

One form of shittiness does not justify another.

[(Anonymous)]

20 years guaranteed is better than none at all. I don't get paid royalties on my work even though it's the foundation for work others do and continues to make money for my company for years down the line. 20 years is fine, jfc.

[feotakahari]

So people can do NEW things with that work. Reinterpret it and modify it, like we do with fairy tales and Shakespeare.

[(Anonymous)]

And why is that an inherent right? Shakespeare's long dead. Rework his material. Someone who published a novel in 1987 can be very much alive and need that money to live. If people want to rework things that are modern, ask for permission and pay for rights. Music industry does it all the time.

[feotakahari]

That’s why Brutal Legend released as about two-thirds of a game. As a game about metal music, they wanted to have a metal soundtrack. The singers were mostly enthusiastic, but dealing with the people who actually held the rights by then ate up their budget. And that was on a moderately large studio budget! You can’t afford that as a solo developer.

For whatever reason, the way these things work in our society is different for art than for other things. I go to work and get payment for my work, and then the payment is done and I have to go to work again. I don’t get any more pay even if my previous work continues to be useful. I’m not trying to change this distinction for art, because there’s no urgent reason it needs to change. But by pointing out how artificial the distinction is, I can at least argue for narrowing the scope a bit. I mean, if your book is still selling after twenty years, you can probably write another good book within that timespan and get paid for that as well.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh no, they had to pay the people who created the music... for their music! THE HORROR.

Your analogy is also stupid as fuck because you get paid every day for the days you work, a creator doesn't, they're paid in sales which then has to last until the next lot of sales. And this is of course assuming that those sales actually hit some kind of decent profit margin, which they mostly don't because more creators aren't the big names that you're thinking of.

[(Anonymous)]

'I mean, if your book is still selling after twenty years, you can probably write another good book within that timespan and get paid for that as well.'

you are either incredibly naive or really stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

How dare people want to receive monetary compensation for something they worked hard on. How dare.

[(Anonymous)]

Literally no one here is arguing that

[(Anonymous)]

🐑 🐑 🐑

[(Anonymous)]

Those two things are from creators who are long, long dead. And in reality creators really don't get paid all that well from their IP's unless they get lucky enough to be hugely successful, you can haggle over copyright stuff when they're dead(and if they didn't leave it to their family), but for god's sake let them make whatever money they can while they're alive.

[(Anonymous)]

+1

I wish some of these commenters would go read Twitter threads by actual living authors about how much they make in royalties, etc. So many still have full-time jobs. It's not some glamorous existence for most.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that creators should make more money.

Lengthy copyright terms are not a good way to solve that problem, at all. They don't really increase compensation for creators that much, and they have real, meaningful societal costs.

This is not a situation where wanting lower copyright terms means you hate creators.

+1

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Just chiming in to register agreement with you, Nonny.

[(Anonymous)]

You're not wrong, nonny.

Copyright as a concept has a use, for sure, but copyright (as currently enshrined in US law at least) has definitely been reworked and rewritten to benefit Disney and maybe a handful of huge business ventures, not indie authors. The latter would benefit far more from things like UBI and robust social safety bets than trying to rigorously police their IP.