I’m really just going to step out here because you just have a different set of beliefs. But this statement above is pretty subjective. Or absurd. Really both. We’re in a world where content of all sorts is more abundant, more accessible than ever. And it’s pretty exceptional quality to boot. So. Idk. Go rain on some other parade
Abundance of content is irrelevant if someone alive during its creation can not use it in their own lifetime.
So you believe that no-one has ownership of their work and a right to, be it a single piece of work or multiple? You're so deluded.
Of course they do, and while 14 years might be excessive it allows for the art to have some time to grow a following.
I'm confused, when someone dies, should all of their savings, wealth, belongings be taken from their family?
There is a big difference between physical items and concepts. A CD with a song on it is a physical thing. The song however is not.
Of course they are. That's why we have patents. You don't have to have anything physically made, but have an idea, and you're protected.
I am not disagreeing that we shouldn't offer protection. The issue is the length of time it is protected. After a short period the content should be owned by the people.
Just explain your logic here. Works of art ... music, tv, etc represent the culmination of a profound amount of work from a number of people with no real guarantees that all of their studying, practice, determination will amount to anything more than a wedding singer position or a sweet resume of restaurant service. So explain to me why you feel entitled to use their hard work at all without their permission, let alone within some random period of time.
Because "their hard work is the culmination of a number of people". They added to culture. They didn't create it.
Oh, really?
So, if I paint a really nice picture that I hang on my wall, when I die you think that my son should not inherit it?
No, and that's not the same at all. No one is saying you lose physical items, what they are saying is that people should be allowed to copy it for themselves and use it to create new art. You don't lose the original.
That it should "belong to society"? So, whoever wants it should come and get it, for free, like? No? That would be stealing, wouldn't it?
No, because you don't lose your copy.
Or that it should automatically be transferred to a museum for all to see? To me that sounds awfully lot like communism.
Again, no because you don't lose your original. Others gain the ability to make their own copy.
My son can sell it, for money, if he so decides, or keep it away from "society" forever, if it's his choosing.
YES! But people could opt to buy a copy from someone else. The value of your son's painting comes from who painted it, not from what it is a paining of.
Why should it be any different for music? Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to inherit music, or more specific rights to?
Because the rights were granted for a limited time. An exclusive to the creator. Unless the kid was involved they have to rights over it.
Painters can let relatives inherit his or hers painting and sell for profit. Why shouldn't composer be allowed to do the same?
They still can! The only thing they shouldn't be allowed to do is stop others from painting the same thing.
You see, it's a lot easier to get "the same experience" from a copy of a recording than from a copy of a painting. If you've ever visited an art museum, you know what I'm talking about. So, paintings/art sell for obscene amounts of money since people want "the real experience" (and of course the possible rise in value), but for composers it's not the same thing, they need the very tiny revenue to trickle in to make their "fortune" out of their hard work.
And they can! What they shouldn't be allowed to do is live off of one song they sell over and over for multiple generations. 14 years is well beyond the lifespan of most music. After that it's value comes not from the artist but from the people supporting the song.
I can tell you that if your idea ever got traction, "14 years of copyright", there would be no radio stations playing anything newer than 14 years ago, and the music industry would instantly come to a grinding halt as noone would ever write a song again, since you can't make a living out of it.
Radio stations are ads for music, but there is no reason they can't play older music. The only difference is that no one would pay Clear Channel to play the older stuff. Maybe they would go under and we would return to a world of independent stations that played a variety of music.
People are still flipping burgers, so I think musicians would still be able to make a living from it. They might not be able to crash their sports car for the lolz, but they would be able to feed their kids.
