You’ve all had some very interesting answers for my last post so here is a question for you, how do you think about copyright in general and should it exist?

  • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t think heritage should exist.

    It would solve so many problems.

    Why should I inherit, but not someone else? Why should rich people inherit lots, the poor nothing? Where I live, the median age to inherit is 59. Think about it, how is that useful for society?

    Otherwise I’m on the same track.

    • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can counteract this with a strict timeframe like 20 or 25 years. If I create something and die a year later, my copyright transfers to whomever and they can hold it for 19 more years. Seems fair all around.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yeah sure. What about only for family (except if you specifically denies it, and then it would go to the state or go free).

        Edit: but why though? If I die tomorrow, my kids won’t get a dime from the work I’m no longer doing for the next 20 years, even if I spent lots of time studying etc. I mean, it’s not simple.

    • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think heritage should exist.

      It would solve so many problems.

      So, if you live in your parents’ house and they die, you should be thrown at the street and all properties and assets should go to the state?

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        If you’re 59 years old, maybe you should have planned ahead a bit.

        Also, nothing stops them helping you get a good start.

        If I lived in my parents house Today and they died, first of all I’d have to share the heritage with 3 other siblings, so no the house isn’t magically mine, then again, that country isn’t some savage country and I would not be “thrown” out in the streets to live in the gutter.

        Otherwise yes, why shall a 59 yo have the right to hoard that wealth? Why shouldn’t there be at least a very strong incentive to spread that wealth to their say 20 yo kids instead?

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I do see what you mean, but I wouldn’t give people an incentive to murder artists ;)

      Just imagine Disney hitmen who are killing the copyright owners for prospective Disney movies.

      For heritage in general, I do agree with you.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ha ha ha yeah, let’s make an exception for that!

        Didn’t Disney actually had hitmens or were dabbling with some guerilla or IDK, or is that just another conspiracy?

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why should dead people have rights that supersede those of living people? I’m all for allowing people to decide who gets their personal belongings, but I’m opposed to anything that could be considered generational wealth, because generational wealth implies generational poverty. I want societal wealth.

        • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          Generational wealth is easily tackled by an inheritance tax. If my rights and living wishes as a dead person don’t matter with regard to my property, why should some random stranger be entitled to it either?

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Who said anything about random strangers? That would just be weird. I’m suggesting something more like a 100% inheritance tax due assets beyond a certain limit.

            • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Public domain literally means “random strangers.” I don’t see why my child (or whoever else I delegate) shouldn’t be able to control the works that I make before I pass. If they did continue my works with full control, then any half-finished book or movie or game or other piece of art would torture them with legal battles and little reward. Banning inheritable copyright is a death sentence for half-finished media.

      • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because we’re all in one society I guess (I mean at least per country). It’s a bit like ask why can’t super rich people hoard up all the value.

        I mean why should some random humans get a head start in society, and others not?

        • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          So what do you think someone to do with everything they worked their life for?

          Are we not at least entitled to give our children a better Headstart then we had?

          Isn’t that the fucking goal?

          • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well yes obviously!

            Why “hoard” it? Why not give it to your kids when they are young, and thus helping them, instead of having the possibility to keep it and give it to your 59 yo child(ren)?

            • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I am giving what I can to them while I can but when I die they deserve the things I work for more than some random.

              If they want they can sell it or donate them but they are my items to do with what I please.

              If a law like that passes people will just transfer before they die and then let their “children’s assets” support them.

              • Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I get what you’re saying, but today a minority inherits billions, many/most inherit when they’re over fifty years old.

                I mean if you have kids, of course they should have it all to help them out (with some upper limit in the hundreds of thousands IMO but that’s discussable ofc) but do tell me why the vast majority of old-timers should be the ones benefit from inheritance?