zlacker

>societal desire that generating IP continue to be a viable economic work product

It is strange that you think the law is settled when I don't think even this "societal desire" is completely settled just yet.

>>slg+(OP)
Maybe I should clarify: Society, in general, supports the idea that writers, artists, film makers, coders, etc— everyone who creates IP- should have a place in the economy. Basically just that it should be possible to make a living and have a career at it. It can be spun different ways, and those differences are important, but this is the basic thing.

This doesn’t seem like a disputable statement to me. For anyone who thinks actors’ likenesses, authors’ words, all of it- that all and everything should be up for grabs once written or put anywhere in public, that is not a widely held opinion.

Once that’s established, it all comes down to implementation details.

>>ineeda+h1
> Society, in general, supports the idea that writers, artists, film makers, coders, etc

Coders don't get paid every single time their code runs. Why bundle different rights together?

>>ekianj+2e
> Coders don't get paid every single time their code runs.

They do if they code the API correctly.

> Why bundle different rights together?

Why are mineral rights sold separately to most land deeds?

>>ekianj+2e
That’s a matter of contract and licensing, not the limits of copyright law.

>>aspenm+rf
> Why are mineral rights sold separately to most land deeds?

Because the population does not rebel against the politicians that made these laws.