That's NEAT! I live in Japan myself, and I am a passionate Japanese learner (and used to be a teacher too) of multiple decades. Besides, I'm interested in natural language processing and language related technology, and used to study second language acquisition research back in the university. If you ever take part into any tech / language events or meetups, it would be nice to hang out and hear about the development…
I'm often in Japan (Tokyo and Mie) so I'll try to let you know if I join something!
> If I'm an (e.g.) accountant, my work does not generate income for my offspring after I pass. Because an accountant’s work is timely and transactional. Creative works may have lasting value for multiple customers. As a contrasting example: pretty much all other income generating assets can be passed down. Copyright is a compromise between society and authors, and I think that’s the right way to frame things. (Also s…
> Creative works may have lasting value for multiple customers. Which is why the artist may deserve royalties over a number of years: they did the work (a possible multi-year investment of time/effort can deserve a multi-year payback period). It does not explain why their (grand)children, who may not have even been born when the work was done, deserve royalties. The Hobbit was published in 1937, and the final volume…
I didn't say anyone deserved anything -- I'm just saying that as a society we do have other (potentially) income generating assets that do pass down to heirs who didn't "do anything to deserve them".
e.g. Some cultures think it is normal that someone can own thousands of acres of wilderness land that they've never even seen just because a distant relative hundreds of years ago had a piece of paper that says they own it. Other cultures believe the earth is a collective resource that is merely used by humans for their lifetime.
> Ideally, a child could legally provide their own spin on IP they consumed by the time they reach adulthood. Why though? Do we really need that many more commercial attempts at Star Wars and Harry Potter? (I do think copyright times are too long, but I do wonder what a "good timescale" would be, and what the benefits and arguments would be.)
Shorter copyrights would lead to less beatings of dead tauntauns or thestrals.
So then "You're never going to win that one.” was just a random guess? Why pretend if there’s no substance at all backing it up?
Again, you seem to misunderstand what this kind of forum is about. I gave my layperson's judgement and my reasons. If you don't agree with them, the thing to do is to point out where you think things are wrong, or add in your own take. That's what will lead to an interesting discussion where we learn from each other.
And this opinion is also based on your… random guesses?
You can probably see the problem then. How do I know if your random guesses have any meaning at all, couldn’t they just be gibberish?
50 Shades is decidedly not a fanfic for the exact reason that it couldn't be sold as one.
Quoting Wikipedia: “The Fifty Shades trilogy was developed from a Twilight fan fiction series originally titled Master of the Universe and published by [E. L.] James episodically on fan fiction websites under the pen name ‘Snowqueen Icedragon’.”
Exactly so. It was not able to be published in its initial state as a Twilight fanfic due to copyright and had to be re-worked so as not to infringe.
I'm not sure what the argument is here. That because there's a large corpus of public domain works, then the long copyright protection is ok? That people want a short copyright protection because they're done with everything in the public domain? Would that also imply that if the number of public domain works gets large enough, then the duration copyright protections should also increase?
Long copyright protection is not okay, but letting the huge corpus of existing public domain works languish in obscurity is not okay either; that does a lot more damage to our shared culture, and in a way that's even quite easy to address. But the damage done by keeping works in copyright is easier to see than the damage done by not making remarkably similar works accessible at all.
It doesn’t do more damage though. Our shared culture is like 99% copyrighted media for a variety of reasons. In books for example, the language becomes harder to read, and while many things remain constant across time, old works can become outdated and not address issues relevant today.
That's NEAT! I live in Japan myself, and I am a passionate Japanese learner (and used to be a teacher too) of multiple decades. Besides, I'm interested in natural language processing and language related technology, and used to study second language acquisition research back in the university. If you ever take part into any tech / language events or meetups, it would be nice to hang out and hear about the development…
I'm often in Japan (Tokyo and Mie) so I'll try to let you know if I join something!
My e-mail is pyry.kontio@drasa.eu in case you happen to be around.
Artists are not the only ones who make a stink about this; it's inherent to the capitalist mode of production. Everyone involved in a venture is risking something , but the law only rewards specific kinds of risk with equity ownership over the venture. Other kinds of risk are solely rewarded with monetary wages at sub-profit margins. That's why labor unions exist, and why the nation's elites work tirelessly to stop t…
> the law only rewards specific kinds of risk with equity ownership over the venture I would argue that it's not solely the law rewarding that kind of risk, it's the market. There is no law that says that only equity owners can enjoy massive profits. Some employees get paid 7 figures, 8 figures, or more, even without equity. Generally speaking, the rewards go to the hardest parts, the riskiest parts, the parts with t…
People who end up leading successful companies are often able to do so not because they’re more willing to take risks than others, but rather because they have experienced more good luck than others. Take Bill Gates, for example. His parents sent him to an exclusive private school, which afforded him regular access to computers from an early age, giving him valuable experience that most others his age could not access, through no fault of their own. Microsoft was able to make a crucial business deal with IBM because Gates’ mother knew the CEO. Someone else with equal skill and appetite for risk would have found it much more difficult to be as successful as Gates was, because their parents were likely not rich and not connected to the right people.
Not sure why the amount of works in the public domain has any relevance to how long copyright protection is. Seems to me like they're two orthogonal issues.
Because every-time this comes up it is the same Mickey mouse complaints over and over. If you're young and your read this the first time I'm sure you're outraged. Meanwhile there are 1000's of works that people are free to take. Better yet, there are 1000's of works that will be destroyed and not preserved that are open that should be preserved and used.
> Meanwhile there are 1000's of works that people are free to take.
Yeah, if you know where they are.
Where can I download a public domain, silent movie ?