Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 260 posts

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#141

Post by jimbokun »

Ntrails wrote: post #130
latexr wrote: post #50

> "Termination of Transfer" was introduced via the 1976 Copyright Act. It allows creators to unilaterally cancel the copyright licenses they have signed over to others, by waiting 35 years and then filing some paperwork with the US Copyright Office. You have to wait half a lifetime?! Talk about a performative (pun unintended) law. > when Congress gives creators new copyrights to bargain with, the Big Five (or Four, o…

> You have to wait half a lifetime?! Yeah, I cannot quite believe the term on that thing. Somewhere between 10 and 20 feels far more reasonable since businesses do need time to work plan around and develop property. I'm not sure how I feel about auto-reversion as a concept. I can see real problems with it conceptually (creating a deadzone around expiry etc)

How about 14? Which as the article explains was the original copyright term.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#142

Post by jimbokun »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #79
latexr wrote: post #50

> "Termination of Transfer" was introduced via the 1976 Copyright Act. It allows creators to unilaterally cancel the copyright licenses they have signed over to others, by waiting 35 years and then filing some paperwork with the US Copyright Office. You have to wait half a lifetime?! Talk about a performative (pun unintended) law. > when Congress gives creators new copyrights to bargain with, the Big Five (or Four, o…

> should never be possible for someone to sign away their rights. If you can sign them away, you can be swindled of them. So, if I sell you my house or car I can't sign away my rights on it? - Sure, there is a difference between material and intellectual property ... Against swindling there needs to be protection from fraud, but that exists in most legislative systems.

You answer your own question.

Yes, intellectual property rights should be different than physical property rights.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#143

Post by NetMageSCW »

jimbokun wrote: post #142
johannes1234321 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should never be possible for someone to sign away their rights. If you can sign them away, you can be swindled of them. So, if I sell you my house or car I can't sign away my rights on it? - Sure, there is a difference between material and intellectual property ... Against swindling there needs to be protection from fraud, but that exists in most legislative systems.

You answer your own question. Yes, intellectual property rights should be different than physical property rights.

Why?

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#144

Post by raldi »

neves wrote: post #101

The phrase below is worth the read: > giving creative workers more rights without addressing their market power is like giving your bullied kid more lunch money. There isn't an amount of lunch money you can give that kid that will buy them lunch – you're just enriching the bullies

This is the problem with basic income if you don’t also increase the housing supply: landlords will just raise rents and soak it all up.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#145

Post by benmanns »

raldi wrote: post #144
neves wrote: post #101

The phrase below is worth the read: > giving creative workers more rights without addressing their market power is like giving your bullied kid more lunch money. There isn't an amount of lunch money you can give that kid that will buy them lunch – you're just enriching the bullies

This is the problem with basic income if you don’t also increase the housing supply: landlords will just raise rents and soak it all up.

It does, however, make providing housing more profitable, which, on the margins, will drive more landlords and home builders into the market, decreasing long term costs (relative to a straight 100% increase relative to the basic income). So you might send everyone $100 per month and costs go up $100 per month, until supply chains shift towards supplying lower income humans with more goods and services than they used to get, at which point costs will decrease (from the $100 increase).

With enough forewarning, suppliers could anticipate the increased demand and prepare for it.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#149

Post by raldi »

benmanns wrote: post #145
raldi wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem with basic income if you don’t also increase the housing supply: landlords will just raise rents and soak it all up.

It does, however, make providing housing more profitable, which, on the margins, will drive more landlords and home builders into the market, decreasing long term costs (relative to a straight 100% increase relative to the basic income). So you might send everyone $100 per month and costs go up $100 per month, until supply chains shift towards supplying lower income humans with more goods and services than they used…

Not if desirable places restrict zoning in a way that prevents more housing from being legal to build.

Re: Disney Lost Roger Rabbit

#150

Post by scotty79 »

raldi wrote: post #144
neves wrote: post #101

The phrase below is worth the read: > giving creative workers more rights without addressing their market power is like giving your bullied kid more lunch money. There isn't an amount of lunch money you can give that kid that will buy them lunch – you're just enriching the bullies

This is the problem with basic income if you don’t also increase the housing supply: landlords will just raise rents and soak it all up.

Or you could have progressive real estate tax so you don't let the bully keep the stolen lunch money and you can give it to your kid again.
Post reply on HN