4 ms·
Since you disagree with "Furthermore absolutely no viable public purpose can be served today by backdating new rules to past works." I just would like to know
by treenyc 11y ago
Since you disagree with "Furthermore absolutely no viable public purpose can be served today by backdating new rules to past works."
I just would like to know your bases for your disagreement, and ask for some examples. Maybe there is a misunderstanding.
- frobozz 11y agoAre you only reading the first few words of my comments, and ignoring the rest? It's right there. A new rule that reduces the term opens up old works earlier than if the contemporary rule is left in place. Let's consider something other than copyright. It is bad to retroactively prosecute people for new crimes, but (for example) should people convicted of sodomy prior to 2003 have to serve out their (up to life) sentences, or since the act is no longer illegal, should they be freed? Surely, if an act is no longer a crime, it's abhorrent to treat people who have committed that act as criminals.
- imtringued 11y agoLet's assume Disney wouldn't lobby for longer copyright durations and the politicians are aware of the advantages of the public domain. They could then reduce copyright durations of past works for the public's benefit.