Let's be clear that I'm anti-inheritance laws to start with - if all men are created equal, why do some of us start with trust funds, and some of us not?

if all men are created equal, why do some of us start with trust funds, and some of us not?[/quote]

Trust funds are not inheritance.

Let's be clear that I'm anti-inheritance laws to start with[/quote]

Because shit happens. You're happily married, raising two children, have 2 years left till big promotion. Then your spouse dies of aneurism.

Next day, government shows up and throws you on the street, taking claim of all of their property, including the clothes you are wearing. It just so happens that they were written in their name. And in case you had shared ownership, then they only claim half.

Don't want government involved, that works as well. Replace government with neighbors, coming to lay claim to unowned property.

I'm not aware of an alternative, but this is what inheritance is.

Trust funds are not inheritance.

No, but they function in much the same way: some 3rd party (your parents) has plenty of resources, so even though you are not intrinsically different to everyone else, you automatically start life with more resources than they do.

I'm not aware of an alternative, but this is what inheritance is.

Of course, you can't just remove inheritance without reworking the surrounding concepts. It would require a fundamental paradigm shift in the way we (as a society) conceive of personal property.

No, but they function in much the same way: some 3rd party (your parents) has plenty of resources, so even though you are not intrinsically different to everyone else, you automatically start life with more resources than they do.[/quote]

I don't follow.

Wealthy parents offer better upbringing. Schools, hospitals, connections.... Inheritance here doesn't come into play, since by the time it does, those adults will be well situated themselves and will have grown into their world.

And parents are hardly a 3rd party, that's just silly.


But feel free to lead by example. Put your children into orphanage, so that they won't be tainted by your well-off first world life style. Running water? Indoor toilet? Really? Just how rich are you? It would be a real shame for your kids to inherit that, since 3 billion people don't have it.

Doesn't make much sense now, does it.

Doesn't make much sense now, does it.

I didn't say it was something that could be implemented right now. Like any socio-political stance, it's a theory based on an ideal state.

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1337021258' post='4940162']
Doesn't make much sense now, does it.

I didn't say it was something that could be implemented right now. Like any socio-political stance, it's a theory based on an ideal state.
[/quote]

Biggest issue with society is millenia old. "Thy shall not covet...", "greed, gluttony, lust, ...." They aren't new concepts but are central to human beings. Any system which isn't built on top of those values will fail since it goes against human (or any) DNA.

Perception of wealth is also tricky. It's not about how fast one can run, all that matters is that you run faster than your competitor. For wealth, it has a different effect. No matter how much money someone has, there is always someone who has more. And once money stops mattering, wealth takes abstract shifting form. Once it's art, then it's fine wine, then land, then spouses, ...

In a way that's fine, since it keeps us going. If everyone were suddenly content, they'd settle down on their porch in rocking chair and wait till they die, having no challenges left.

Perhaps the biggest advantage a society can give is to not set roadblocks at personal advancement. If someone wants a billion dollars, allow them. If someone wants to live without, fine as well. Trying to prevent this progression and choice is what causes unrest, since in developed world, basic needs are met. There is sufficient food, shelter and clothes to go around, problems occur when those needs aren't met anymore, mostly due to relatively unimportant (compared to banks, state budgets) money issues.

But anything more is based around scarcity to define value, so it's naturally not available to everyone equally. It's much more important to keep these luxuries still in reach of everyone, should they be willing to pursue them with sufficient effort. Right now, these paths still exist, but options have been considerably narrowed.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1337001122' post='4940052']
Because they're not the same thing. A physical object isn't the same thing as the monopoly granted by the state on a creative work. Both of them have laws regulating how they work, but there is no reason why those laws should be the same (and indeed, they aren't the same).

Technically the land you own is a state granted monopoly on that land. The state can take it just as well giving fair compensation. The only difference is that land doesn't diminish in value over time (for the most part).[/quote]You seem to be arguing that "these two things have some things in common, therefore it's okay to treat them the same in every respect". As I say: both land and copyright have laws regulating them, but they are not treated the same, nor should they be. As I say, presumably you don't think the length for copyright should be infinite, as it is for land?

An important difference is that public domain has no meaning for land. Whilst one could make it "common" land, people cannot simultaneously use it with the same value, where as many people can use a creative work. With land, the issue is about making it so that some people have land to themselves, because land is needed to live, and being allocated land all to yourself is important for reasons of privacy, security and so on. I see no analogy with copyright - giving someone total control over a creative work is not done for the same reasons as it is done for land.

Ideally the lifetime + 70 years figure is intended to be the amount of time for the original holder to have [at least nearly] fully realized the profit from their IP.[/quote]I'm sure the 70 years after they are dead are very useful for the original holder to make money

Even if she left it to a charity, I would still be upset if I were in her family. If there were no profit to be made personally it would not affect my displeasure with the situation. It is not about the money. It is about respecting the recently deceased creator. I would be upset if I were her relative, she was alive, and she got screwed over on the license to an IP she owned; why should I not be upset because she's dead and got screwed over on the license to an IP she owned?[/quote]As pointed out, if a contract was made, then the validity of those terms is independent of copyright law. But something becoming public domain is not disrespecting or screwing anyone over. Neither is making a derivative work of something that's in the public domain. There is no contract or licence here.

The question of whether ignoring a dead person's wishes only goes so far as those wishes being reasonable. I could put whatever I liked in my will, but that doesn't mean people have to follow it. Furthermore, even if we agreed that someone *was* being disrespectful, that doesn't mean it should be backed up by law.

Being disrespectful isn't itself against the law. It is perfectly possible that one might feel annoyed that someone does something, whilst it also not being a legal issue.

You are, quite frankly, missing the point if you think I am arguing that the money is what's important here.[/quote]

Earlier you said:

I'd feel pretty shitty if my father wrote a book, then died, and a year after his death HBO/Universal/whatever made $200 million off his IP without throwing anything back to the people he left behind/cared most about.[/quote]So is it the money, or isn't it? Here you imply it would be fine if they paid you, the relative, some money?

Because shit happens. You're happily married, raising two children, have 2 years left till big promotion. Then your spouse dies of aneurism.

Next day, government shows up and throws you on the street, taking claim of all of their property, including the clothes you are wearing. It just so happens that they were written in their name. And in case you had shared ownership, then they only claim half.

Indeed, which is another reason why copyright is not like physical objects - when creative works become public domain (whether after a fixed term, after death, after death plus 70 years), it is not at all the same thing as the Government turning up to take one's property.

Ideally the lifetime + 70 years figure is intended to be the amount of time for the original holder to have [at least nearly] fully realized the profit from their IP.

I'm sure the 70 years after they are dead are very useful for the original holder to make money [/quote]
That was poorly worded on my part. It's a figure that intended to be the amount of time for the original holder to have control over the majority of the profit their IP should have realized.

Like I said, I think it's too long, but I still think it's totally reasonable for me to leave the benefits of my work to my children, regardless of the form that work takes. Houses, money, IP, companies, whatever.

As pointed out, if a contract was made, then the validity of those terms is independent of copyright law. But something becoming public domain is not disrespecting or screwing anyone over. Neither is making a derivative work of something that's in the public domain. There is no contract or licence here.[/quote]
We're arguing the ethics of the duration until something enters public domain, not whether things entering public domain at all is ethical. Nothing in my hypothetical situation says anything is in the public domain.

You are, quite frankly, missing the point if you think I am arguing that the money is what's important here.[/quote]

Earlier you said:

I'd feel pretty shitty if my father wrote a book, then died, and a year after his death HBO/Universal/whatever made $200 million off his IP without throwing anything back to the people he left behind/cared most about.[/quote]So is it the money, or isn't it? Here you imply it would be fine if they paid you, the relative, some money?[/quote]
When you buy your wife flowers, do you think she cares more about the flowers or the fact that you bought them for her? It's not about the flowers just like receiving something for the use of your father's IP isn't about the money.

Just like Robert Kearns took a chance at a $10 million settlement for his case against Ford instead of a $30 million settlement in which Ford would admit no wrongdoing. He got money, sure, but he wanted them to admit that what they'd done was wrong, not to give him money and be absolved.

An important difference is that public domain has no meaning for land.[/quote]

Oh, but it does. It's determined by size of army.

Ownership of land is determined solely by a "verbal" agreement: "land on this side of river is mine, on the other it's yours". But bring a big enough army, and you can have both sides.

Land does not have ownership, it's up for grabs. We see much less of squabbles over it due to very connected world, where everyone depends on everyone else.

As I say, presumably you don't think the length for copyright should be infinite, as it is for land?[/quote]

Ownership of land isn't infinite and whatever rules there are, they are completely defined by law, nothing else (laws change, then people lose their land). For some deals, it's a lease, often limited at 99 years (depends greatly by country/region/...). For others, ownership is bound to life of the owner, after which inheritance laws take over. it may go to one or multiple people, related or not, or it may have nobody to inherit it, after which it's put into custody of governing body to auction it off. Or something else.

Land ownership is completely tied to owners' lifetime. Owners may be legal entities, such as corporations as well.

And then there's special rules (again, subject to local legislation). Let's say a piece of land bordering on yours (A) is owned by person B. B is absent, so A tends to it (without objections from B or in violation of laws). After 20 years, A may claim the land and becomes eligible to become the owner. It's less common for privately owned land, but may apply to state-owned land. Especially for state-owned land, there's other exceptions. If A makes considerable (legal) infrastructure investment, they may again, after some time, lay claim to the land as their property. Things like these are why some people don't want any strangers near their own property (up to and including use of firearms) - to avoid potential abandonment-related issues.

All these exceptions to laws make a lot of sense. Assume that some part of land is subject to landslides, so neighbor who has a house underneath invests into securing it, considering state/county didn't. Since it benefits both, they transfer ownership. At same time, laws like these prevent extortion from government - assuming you build something of value, then mayor comes and throws you out, robbing you of investment.

(consider the above holding for copyright. You write a book, make no money off it, but someone invests $200 million into it, without paying royalties - so they are granted copyright ownership).

BTW: above mess is why lawyers and notaries get paid so much.

Land is one of the most coveted properties and people kill each other over a square meter of it.

We're arguing the ethics of the duration until something enters public domain, not whether things entering public domain at all is ethical. Nothing in my hypothetical situation says anything is in the public domain.

Your hypothetical situation is:

A more concrete example would be if JK Rowling died in 1998 and her IPs were suddenly public domain.[/quote]

Who is being screwed over, by who?

When you buy your wife flowers, do you think she cares more about the flowers or the fact that you bought them for her? It's not about the flowers just like receiving something for the use of your father's IP isn't about the money.

Just like Robert Kearns took a chance at a $10 million settlement for his case against Ford instead of a $30 million settlement in which Ford would admit no wrongdoing. He got money, sure, but he wanted them to admit that what they'd done was wrong, not to give him money and be absolved.
[/quote]Would it be okay then if they acknowledged your father as the original author? And maybe bought you some flowers?

If not - can you elaborate which set of things would be okay?

(Re: suing, usually one does that by suing them for a trivial amount like $1, or just to cover costs. Not that there's anything wrong in suing someone for money when compensation is deserved. But I'm not going to be convinced by someone saying it's not the money, whilst pocketing a nice $10 million...)

@Antheus: Okay, my descriptions of land were simplifying, but my point being that land and copyright are treated as different things (as they should be).