I strongly suspect that few would be satisfied with the results.
Then you, I presume, must be too young to remember the golden age of Newgrounds
I strongly suspect that few would be satisfied with the results.
Hardly. I'm pushing 60. That you state it had a "golden age" implies that it had a finite lifespan.Then you, I presume, must be too young to remember the golden age of Newgrounds
Then consider this: A completely open model for IP only really benefits those with the money to capitalize upon an IP. If, for example, Doc Smith's Lensmen series was suddenly available to all, who would stand to make more profit from it; the Smith family, or Disney? Who would essentially have the credit for it, given that the majority of movie goers wouldn't have read the seminal work?
Except that the moment that the Smith family published it, it would be "free on the internet." That was the whole point that I wanted someone to get around to, when I posted that. Thanks to @Cadence for the assist there. This. This is why that model is simply unsupportable.The Smith family, obviously. How on Earth would Disney profit from it in this scenario. It would br free on the internet the day after it opened. There wouldn't be any profit for Disney to withhold from the Smiths. And the Smiths would thus make the greater profit by vitue of not having lost millions of dollars.
This whole scanario relies on the outdated 20th centruy assumptions that things can't be copied and distributed essentially for free.
And since this outdated argument is and aleays has been the main argument for copyright protections it follows that copyright protections are an outdated concept too.
I want to emphasize that this would be work your father did. Not you. The question comes up - how much or even why should you be able to profit from his work at all?
I agree (now ). Property is property, be it intellectual or physical.I don't necessarily disagree. So if my father had bought a house, or had kept working for the last twenty years, that's his work not mine and I shouldn't inherit? Why is creative work not working the same?
The nature of owning a creative work is very different. You may own a physical copy of his notes or a specific copy of a book he wrote, but owning the copyright to a work isn't like owning something physical that cannot be infinitely duplicated, is at risk of being destroyed/stolen or otherwise taken from your possession, and doesn't not degrade in condition if you fail to physically maintain it. As long as the work is in demand, a copyright holder can distribute the work (in some form) again, and again, and again, and never reduce his capacity to continue to do so.I don't necessarily disagree. So if my father had bought a house, or had kept working for the last twenty years, that's his work not mine and I shouldn't inherit? Why is creative work not working the same?
So as a creative, if I want to leave something from what I build to my children, I am very much encouraged to sell the rights to it in my waning years and turn it into something physical. Actually, I'm encouraged to not pursue creative careers. Not only are they often not as paying as others, success is rare, but I can hardly ensure that my children might have better opportunities in life than me.The nature of owning a creative work is very different. You may own a physical copy of his notes or a specific copy of a book he wrote, but owning the copyright to a work isn't like owning something physical that cannot be infinitely duplicated, is at risk of being destroyed/stolen or otherwise taken from your possession, and doesn't not degrade in condition if you fail to physically maintain it. As long as the work is in demand, a copyright holder can distribute the work (in some form) again, and again, and again, and never reduce his capacity to continue to do so.
So, yeah, why should they work the same?