"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
The question is does the heritability of IP promote the progress of science and useful arts, or does it simply enrich heirs? I can see the argument that people wouldn't create art or do science if they couldn't profit from it, but it's much greyer whether they wouldn't do it if they couldn't pass it to their heirs.
This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in favor of copyright:
When, in 1749, Thomas Newton's (1704-1782) edition of Paradise Lost was published, it carried details about the impoverished circumstances in which Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, lived.[33] The account gave rise to a performance of Milton's Comus at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from which Elizabeth received £130, the profits of the evening. When aligned with the fact that Milton himself received only £20 from Simmons, the tale became a staple in subsequent accounts of neglected genius and avaricious publishers.
Deazley, R. (2008) ‘Commentary on Milton's Contract 1667', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
Still that cuts in both directions, in that you could use it to argue that other properties don't necessarily need to be heritable.
Either way it's pretty clear the "limited times" they were imagining were a portion of a lifespan, not multiple lifespans. It's pretty ridiculous that as the world moves faster these durations are increasing rather than decreasing.
Rather have the money go to St Jude or some other charity.
It seems the commenter is more talking about her/his idea of a "principle" whereby we can "judge a person's value (and eligibility to inherit from the commenter)" by what they have done / would do with such money. This person seems to suggest they themselves have high value in that regard, and seems to suggest their family does not. To me, it wasn't clear the commenter intends to leave them "a few million" as you seem to suggest.
I personally grew up poor AF in a 3rd world country with no resource (no running water, a hole for a toilet, and we used lamps at night to study). It bothers me when I see people in USA basically live off their parents and complain non-stop over dumb things. That's like, my opinion bro.
I'll be leaving my family a generous amount, don't you worry about them. I love them very much, and I want them to be successful on their own two feet and not depend on me to die so they can ball out.
More importantly, I'll raise my kids right compared to the fools I see around me in USA who just live off their lineage and still manage to complain over the dumbest things.
Case in point - my housemate from a few years ago when I was broke AF and living in a cheap 10x8 room.. this dude spent basically 16 hours a day playing call of duty/drinking/smoking weed and he basically told me he was waiting for his grandmother to die so he can receive some money. She ended up dying from Covid and he got almost 600k. He still smokes weed, gets drunk, and even got a DUI recently. I would be ashamed if he was my kid for failing as a parent. He's probably the most egregious example, but I know plenty of others who don't work hard because they know they're going to get a ton of money from their grandparents/parents dying so they just play the long game. I find that gross.. imagine wasting your life until you're 40 waiting for a payday from granny or mommy passing away.
Isn't there research that shows that wealth concentration across generations just leads to that wealth dissipating within 2-3 generations? What's the point of that? I want my children to know the value of money.. that is that money comes by providing value to others. Pleasing one's parents/guardians/family is not that hard, IMO that's just a baseline.
Actually getting people to pay for something one made or can do is a lot harder, and takes deep efforts to accomplish. If my kids want to ask me for some money to start a business or attend some course, sure I'm more than happy to oblige. When I pass away, I hope my kids would have been able to build something of their own because they took inspiration from the world and people in it to be valuable human beings while I was still alive. I would honestly be proud if I don't have to leave anything to my children, because they have become capable individuals. It would be trivial for me to leave everything to my family, took like 20 minutes to write a will.
It is far more challenging and rewarding to raise good men and women, and I think I can do that by encouraging them to provide value to others. My parents could barely afford to feed themselves but after we moved to US put me into things like Kumon, a basketball camp, took me to the hospital to volunteer, encouraged me to do after school activities like robotics and math club, go to the library, etc.. I think it made me a far better person. When my grandfather passed away he had no money or assets to his name. You know what he said on his death bed? He was proud of his children and grandchildren, that they had taken life by the reins and done their best to steer that horse. "Have a good life" is what he said to me. I want my kids to have a good life too. While I'm alive I'll set them up for it. We all have our viewpoints, so that's mine.
My own dad grew up without indoor plumbing in the US for much of his early childhood (I think until he was 12 or so; his older brother would have been 20). Much of the rural areas of the US didn't have electricity, or at least indoor plumbing, until the New Deal started moving things in the 1930's. Robert F Kennedy even remarked on the lack of utilities in his 1968 tour of Appalachia.
He (and my aunts and uncles) raised us to appreciate what we have, and to understand the difference in life that working hard and not being wasteful can make. Though normal (perhaps even small) compared to most suburban houses in the US, what I grew up in was practically the lap of luxury compared to the farmhouse he did.
I'm still amazed at how few people seem to appreciate the difference one or two generations' time has made on life here.
Weird, huh?
yeah but it's less of a bit that than it is a bit that your parents owned physical property and intellectual property and when they died you inherit the physical property so why not the intellectual property.
Having read various fair use decisions over many years, I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent. Courts try to apply the four fair use factors and maintain consistency with previous decisions, but it's just a mess. If you look at this case, the district court decided it was fair use, the appeals court decided it wasn't, and the Supreme Court agreed it wasn't but with a 7-2 split. The point is that even expert judges can't agree. It's kind of hopeless to try to make sense of fair use law.
Logically speaking fair use would have to have some degree of indeterminance and incoherence given that there is not mathematical formula detailing specifically how much change is needed for transformation in relation to commercializing that change. Without such a formula there will always be edge cases that will look wacky in relation to everything else.
The Roberts Court in a nutshell. At least they made a ruling. Versus slipping this case thru the emergency shadow docket.
Finding value is not a concern of the various copyright and IP infringements though. Nearly any copy will find value, as that was the point of copying it in the first place.
It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply saying, "I find no value in the original work but I find value in Warhol's rendition". Since the argument is that the court is supposedly defending Goldsmith's right to prosper from her works, then you cannot say that she would have benefitted unilaterally because I would not have paid her for her art, only Warhol. Personally I don't care for Warhol much and I'm using the royal I, but to say that applying a filter to an image cannot create a new work is, I think, preposterous.
Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. All it does is add more confusion into the mix. So if Warhol hadn't commercialized the work, would it have been fair use? That's now an open question after reading the supreme court's majority opinion/ruling.
All this case does is demonstrate that in this specific instance 7 of 9 judges didn't obviously see how Warhol's work transformed the original source material enough to constitute a new work, or Warhol foundations' lawyers didn't make it obvious enough. And it now throws into the mix that "fair use" is not solely dependent on the idea of transforming a work, it's in fact way more complicated and so yes let's open the flood gates for a bunch of new copyright cases arguing that one artist, even though they did transform an original work, was too adjacent and not distinguished enough to constitute fair use.
I mean honestly I'm super confused how to interpret fair use now.
> But the real scandal is that copyright survives the artist. Marvin Gaye, Andy Warhol... Dead guys. So called "estates"... Insects feeding on corpses.
Agree.