4 ms·
That's an interesting thought.
by neikos 10y ago
That's an interesting thought.
- Johnny_Brahms 10y agoHeck: Let's change copyright while we are at it. I have never heard any good arguments why copyright should be longer than 20 years. That is of course never going to happen, but I have a compromise: 20 years exclusive rights. After that: 50 years commercial rights + dual license as CC-BY-NC-SA. That way content creators can earn money by licensing/selling their work for commercial use, and the public can use it non-commercially.
- chris11 10y agoI'm also bothered by the fact that most copyright extensions are retroactive. If something is going to lose its copyright protection in a few years, that work should lose it even if copywright protection is extended.
- Klathmon 10y agoThat's what bothers me the most. If the purpose of copyright is to incentivize new creation, applying changes to it retroactively only serves to hurt the public.
- tagrun 10y agoExtension of copyright law been "sponsored" by MPAA and corporations. So better yet, they should make lobbying illegal again, and treat it as a form of bribe.