4 ms·
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years
by foepys 9y ago
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- thomastjeffery 9y agoShort answer: Disney In the US, money = speech. Huge media corporations like Disney have deep pockets, and therefore have deep influence. Increasing copyright length only benefits these corporations.
- on_and_off 9y agoAnother reason to be deeply afraid to see Disney acquire everybody else.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mcintyre1994 9y agoI don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can continue making money after 20 years and would prefer to do that than not. Especially with things like Disney cycling availability of older films and stuff, I'm sure they make loads of money on their older material and just want to keep doing that even if it was successful when first released.
- foepys 9y agoThis is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only" protected for 20 years (which is fine). If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140 - maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just absurd?
- gt_ 9y agoWhen an artistic pursuit is personal, it seems like it could maybe be passed on in a will or something similar. This might be a ridiculous idea, but I guess I find complaining about someone’s artistic endeavors not being free to be absurd in it’s own way.
- behringer 9y agoTell that to Disney when he made snow white.
- gt_ 9y agoElaborate
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoMany Disney stories (including Snow White) are copied from earlier works by authors unaffiliated with Disney.
- gt_ 9y agoCopied? Snow White was a groundbreaking feat of animation brilliance, a result of tireless effort, craftsmanship and detail that experts widely agree rivals any animation project produced to date. It was literally the first feature-length color animated film with sync audio ever produced, and you’re cutting it down for it’s screenplay being inspired by a fairy tale? This is no weakness. This is consistent with filmmaking tradition and the nature of humanities efforts in general. The line is not a sharp one, but in terms of Snow White, if I understand your accusation correctly, your point is lost. I am open minded but, with all due respect, it appears you might not be aware of some critical truths of how art gets made. Either way, what do you suggest? We probably generally agree on the topic at hand. I am saddened seeing many early films eroding which have yet to be digitized because they are not accessible.
- 9y ago
- mxfh 9y agoAs long as the company exists, they will always have the trademark, which is independent of the copyright.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- munificent 9y ago> If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change. Is your argument that if I can't make money off my own creative work in 20 years, anyone should have the right to give it a shot after that, even if I'm still around? That sounds pretty shitty to me. I'm all for copyright expiring, but I'd hate to lose the rights to my own work while I'm still living.
- thomastjeffery 9y agoYour argument is that if you come up with an idea, and spend 20 years failing to profit from it, I shouldn't be allowed to give it a shot. That sounds a lot more "shitty" to me than the alternative.
- rhino369 9y agoOne reason is that patents are much broader than copyrights. A copyright only prevents someone from copying your specific work. You can copyright Batman, but someone else can make Black Panther. Patents cover independently developmed products and can cover fundamental methods or products. Inventions are often nearly developed by diffrent people. If the Wright Brothers didn't invent the airplane, someone else would have within ten years. Someone else wouldn't have written To Kill a Mockingbird. Some other novel may have captured the same fame and critical praise, but that copyright doesn't stop that novel from exisiting.