you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Like if an author had a five year old why shouldn’t the kid get royalties if their parents is in an accident?

Like I said, all it does is prioritize the desires of the dead over the needs of the living. It's not justified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    So you would rather the publisher make the money instead of giving it to the family of the artist for a short period of time.

    What terrible priorities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I do think they said a publisher was involved.

    But what about when they are not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Hmm, I think there may have been some confusion on my part here. I’m fine with copyright directly serving individual authors and their families.

    I’m not into how that is expanded and abused by corporations.

    But I’m also not into the idea that my creative work could be taken and used in ways I don’t want it to be to undercut me and destroy my ability to subsist off of my labor. I so I think copyright has a place in society.

  • source
  • parent