Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="prosfilaes" data-source="post: 7689931" data-attributes="member: 40166">Bottom line, it's not stuff. It's a limited monopoly granted by the state for the purposes of society. It is an incredibly invasive monopoly; if you're in your house not bothering anyone, to break the law in the US you can either make explosives, controlled drugs, forge legal documents, rip your vinyl records to MP3s, or write a fanfic of a commercial property. There's a couple of other things, but it's a pretty short list, as benefiting a nation that believes in liberty, and the last ones stand out.Is it worth it? It's hard to imagine another good way for a capitalist society to handle things, but it seems the way we have been doing things is a little extreme, that society would be better off reducing the range of the monopoly. Certainly reducing the duration would help, as society gets little help from 95 year copyright terms; the time value of money means that payoffs decades down the road don't mean much to creators, and payoffs decades down the road rarely exist.And if you want to see it as a fundamental right that overrides the basic rights of property, that's your choice. But that's one model, not the one true answer.Edit:This discussion started with a post about RPGs created by various creators. In particular, Far Trek is an entirely new RPG whose creators used a preexisting setting. In my discussion, I have repeatedly mentioned fanfic writers and YouTube singers. You do not get to create this dichotomy here, when the whole discussion has been about how creators can be copyright violators.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="prosfilaes, post: 7689931, member: 40166"] Bottom line, it's not stuff. It's a limited monopoly granted by the state for the purposes of society. It is an incredibly invasive monopoly; if you're in your house not bothering anyone, to break the law in the US you can either make explosives, controlled drugs, forge legal documents, rip your vinyl records to MP3s, or write a fanfic of a commercial property. There's a couple of other things, but it's a pretty short list, as benefiting a nation that believes in liberty, and the last ones stand out. Is it worth it? It's hard to imagine another good way for a capitalist society to handle things, but it seems the way we have been doing things is a little extreme, that society would be better off reducing the range of the monopoly. Certainly reducing the duration would help, as society gets little help from 95 year copyright terms; the time value of money means that payoffs decades down the road don't mean much to creators, and payoffs decades down the road rarely exist. And if you want to see it as a fundamental right that overrides the basic rights of property, that's your choice. But that's one model, not the one true answer. Edit: This discussion started with a post about RPGs created by various creators. In particular, Far Trek is an entirely new RPG whose creators used a preexisting setting. In my discussion, I have repeatedly mentioned fanfic writers and YouTube singers. You do not get to create this dichotomy here, when the whole discussion has been about how creators can be copyright violators. [/QUOTE]

Verification