Comment by altmanaltman
5 hours ago
But this must then follow for all forms of works, why just books? Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death for the public benefit as well if that's the case.
If I wrote it, I own the copyright on it, why should I or my future family give away something I worked really hard for? Why do only authors must care about public benefits?
> Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death
if public company means employee owned (instead of publicly traded or state owned) then im all for it. if the founders family are good managers they can easily convince their workers to let them keep running things.
you dont deserve a job or a fortune just because your parents did a lot of hard work before you were an adult. you got to prove yourself and be better than the rest, thats what capitalism is all about right?
What do you mean that's what capitalism is about? It's about capital. It doesn't asks where you get that capital - if you have $100,000 that you inherited vrs $100,000 you earned, JPM will still see it as just $100,000. So yes, by capitalism, if your parents did a lot of hard work and saved the capital and gave it to you, you have it. Where does it make a moral judgement that it's wrong to have inheritance or right to earn it by the bootstraps?
And no, I mean every trade secret of the company should become public and anyone should be able to create its products and brands. Basically, do to them what you propose to do to writers and artists - why must their families benefit from their work?
So what? Why should the state grant you a monopoly at all?
The reason is to encourage people to create useful writings and make useful discoveries. But we need to balance this encouragement with the benefit we get by making these writings and discoveries available to everyone. By granting a time-bound monopoly the state rewards creators, and by ensuring this time period is not excessive, spreads the benefit among the populace.
Plus, with a time bound benefit, you have to keep on creating, which is good for everyone under this regime.
These aren't, like, inherent rights, they are contingent
The point isn't why the state should grant me (or writers) a monopoly. But rather, why should the principle not be applied to all property and ownership and not just copyright for creative works? Why should one lose ownership over their said work if they are a writer but they shouldn't lose ownership of their trade secrets because they are a high-frequency trader? Or more so, why should only the creative field worry about the public better good when it comes to ownership and property? The conversation for public domain must extend to everything and not just works or art if one really believes in it.