You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
9

[–] UchihaMadara 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

i'd say 15-25 years is appropriate. 2-5 years is pretty short for someone who may have spent that amount of time or more on their books.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i'd say 15-25 years is appropriate. 2-5 years is pretty short for someone who may have spent that amount of time or more on their books.

Sounds like you're going into labour theory of value there: I spent X amount of work on my product, therefore it's worth X and deserves X worth of protection. In practice, value and work aren't related. I can put an hours work beachcombing in Alaska, find a gold nugget, and my work will have been worth $100,000. Or I could spend years doing it and find a lump of iron pyrite, in which case those years of labour were worth a few cents.

You can spend an entire lifetime writing a book, or a few weeks. There's no way some government agency can calculate how valuable an intangible work is and how much return you deserve.

Fortunately markets are pretty good at this. Consumers are generally willing to reward an artist who's producing good stuff, even if they could get it without paying. They're also pretty harsh on ripoffs and copycats. If someone starts selling an identical product, even if it's cheaper, consumers will mostly disdain it. And if a well known artist copies an emerging one it can ruin their career.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
-1

[–] The_Ghost 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

If the book has so little value to you, then don't read it.

0
2

[–] Plavonica 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

books.

2-5 per book is good enough. Publish or die.

0
3

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

2-5 is more than enough for most things. Imagine how fast technology could/would advance if companies were forced to remain innovative.

2
0

[–] ShinyVoater 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

That's good enough for trashy novels, but more serious literature would suffer greatly if things were that short. Technical references, for example, don't exactly fly off the shelves, but still require a great deal of effort to compile. Unless you want everybody to learn everything from shitty tutorials and half-assed articles, more time has to be allowed for the compilers to recoup their investment.

0
0

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I can see 5-10, even with technical stuff. Hell, on many technical books they are out of date way before 15-25 years.