|
|
|
|
|
|
by kohanz
3087 days ago
|
|
|
Legacy and providing for your offspring is a huge motivation for many people. It's interwoven through all aspects of our society. Why should it be ignored here? To say it's not a "strong" motivation for older people misses the mark, IMHO. It may not be a motivation for you (at this point in your life, or forever), but that doesn't mean it's not a significant factor. Again, you're essentially saying that older people don't need as much incentive as younger people to create, which I don't necessarily agree with. |
|
|
Although you are taking the "family" viewpoint, the reality is that copyright more atypically tends to be shuffled around and bought up by large rent-seekers corporations. Many times, the original artist's descendants don't even make a penny. Example: Before invalidated in 2015, who benefited from the strange copyright on "Happy Birthday"? Was it the ancestors of the originators (Mildred J. Hill at the most direct, but probably with several other hands involved before it morphed into its familiar form)? No, it was Warner/Chappell Music.
To me, it would be very hard to argue that the benefits of extended copyright at this point. It's a form of rent-seeking, an activity many economists have problems with. (It was actually pretty easy to find an economist -- a Nobel winner -- blasting rent-seeking. Nobel winner Angus Daton did so here for instance around the 30 minute mark -- https://www.c-span.org/video/?424924-5/national-association-.... It was more in the context of our broken health care system, but similar issues apply with government-sanctioned monopolies of creative works.)