4 ms·
Such rights are part of a social contract only. When the US decided to implement such a contract, the original duration was 14 years plus another 14 if the owne
by virmundi 10y ago
Such rights are part of a social contract only. When the US decided to implement such a contract, the original duration was 14 years plus another 14 if the owner of the work was still alive [1], and pursed the next term. We've now got to 70 years after the rights owner's death. A question that a lot of pirates have is "does this make sense at a policy level?"
Add to that many pirates also purchase more media, the question become more interesting.
While I don't condone or use such technology (I'd rather own it and not have to watch our for an enforcer), I don't buy things. If I can't purchase it legally, I don't want it. I've gotten to the point that the whole topic makes me not want to purchase or consume media anymore. I still do, but it's becoming more of a chore with each passing day.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
- agumonkey 10y agoHow is inheritance dealt with ? a family and lineage will surely want to benefit from an ancestor wealth as long as possible be it 14, 70 or even more years.
- virmundi 10y agoI don't see why society needs to care specifically about their desires. The only reason for copyright at all is we think it's best for the person creating a work to have exclusive rights to said work for a period of monetizing. If they have exclusive rights, a person is probably more likely to pursue creation and innovation. It is my contention that the current duration promotes rent seeking, which is against the spirit of the 1790's act.
- agumonkey 10y agoVery good point.
- cr0sh 10y agoWhen the owner of a work is a corporation (eg. Disney), and corporations are considered legal persons (in many ways - including their religion!), then 70+ years starts to make sense in a certain (but ugly) way...