6 ms·

> why house can be inherited indefinitely and creative work is not Because copying houses is inherently expensive, while copying creative works is inherently f

> why house can be inherited indefinitely and creative work is not Because copying houses is inherently expensive, while copying creative works is inherently free. To make creative works act like houses you have to add artificial cost to copying, which is a tax the public has to pay for the entire duration of copyright. If the public has to pay a tax they should get something out of it, and that something is the incentive for authors to create new works. But does copyright have to be for life + 70 in order to incentivize new works? Clearly not! It could be much shorter while still providing plenty of incentive.

achempion 7d ago
Public doesn't pay a creative tax. You're free to buy or not buy any creative work. This is different with other assets though, you have to pay someone indefinitely to rent a place to live, even though building (or land) was built hundreds years ago and just gets inherited by new generation of landlords every 75 years.
- ItsMonkk 6d ago
  Any price above the marginal cost produces dead-weight loss. Dead-weight loss causes less value to be created than is possible. What we need is a system that subsidizes the value created by the inventor, without any restrictions for the rest of society. Without any restrictions will allow every innovation to maximize the value that it is able to create. Currently an innovation can be hampered because the person who created that innovation is not the one best able to utilize that innovation. One way to accomplish this is through an Innovation Prize Model while Patents and Copyrights be abolished. The way it would work is that once you've come up with some innovation, you have a choice. You can either keep it secret, or you can reveal the secret. If you reveal the secret, the government could grant you a 30 year bond based on the value of this innovation. The bond will have a minimum value, and if it's discovered within the 30 year window that the innovation is more valuable than previously suspected, value will be added to that bond. You would then have an option, to keep the bond for the 30 years, or you could sell a portion of this bond to others to instantly get cash. There could be a market for these that made it easy to trade and discover expected values. It's clear from the dead-weight loss portion that overall value will be much higher than the existing scenario, so this payment will be much higher than any profits that copyright holders currently accrue.
- dvdkon 7d ago
  > You're free to buy or not buy any creative work. You also don't have to rent/buy a place to live, but I wouldn't want to live a life without a roof over my head or access to creative works of my culture. When you accept that access to media is a necessity (and people today do treat it as such, just try finding someone who doesn't listen to music, watch videos, read books...), you clearly see that having copyright is a decision made by the state that results in wealth transfer from every citizen to authors and publishers. Those authors/publishers do provide value, so it's not necessarily a bad thing, but as with every market intervention, the specifics need to be carefully considered.

achempion 7d ago

Public doesn't pay a creative tax. You're free to buy or not buy any creative work. This is different with other assets though, you have to pay someone indefinitely to rent a place to live, even though building (or land) was built hundreds years ago and just gets inherited by new generation of landlords every 75 years.

ItsMonkk 6d ago
Any price above the marginal cost produces dead-weight loss. Dead-weight loss causes less value to be created than is possible. What we need is a system that subsidizes the value created by the inventor, without any restrictions for the rest of society. Without any restrictions will allow every innovation to maximize the value that it is able to create. Currently an innovation can be hampered because the person who created that innovation is not the one best able to utilize that innovation. One way to accomplish this is through an Innovation Prize Model while Patents and Copyrights be abolished. The way it would work is that once you've come up with some innovation, you have a choice. You can either keep it secret, or you can reveal the secret. If you reveal the secret, the government could grant you a 30 year bond based on the value of this innovation. The bond will have a minimum value, and if it's discovered within the 30 year window that the innovation is more valuable than previously suspected, value will be added to that bond. You would then have an option, to keep the bond for the 30 years, or you could sell a portion of this bond to others to instantly get cash. There could be a market for these that made it easy to trade and discover expected values. It's clear from the dead-weight loss portion that overall value will be much higher than the existing scenario, so this payment will be much higher than any profits that copyright holders currently accrue.
dvdkon 7d ago
> You're free to buy or not buy any creative work. You also don't have to rent/buy a place to live, but I wouldn't want to live a life without a roof over my head or access to creative works of my culture. When you accept that access to media is a necessity (and people today do treat it as such, just try finding someone who doesn't listen to music, watch videos, read books...), you clearly see that having copyright is a decision made by the state that results in wealth transfer from every citizen to authors and publishers. Those authors/publishers do provide value, so it's not necessarily a bad thing, but as with every market intervention, the specifics need to be carefully considered.