3 ms·
The insane near infinite copyright is what's ridiculous (patents too). I'd say put a 5-7 or 14 year duration on works like the original copyright laws had. The
by cromwellian 8y ago
The insane near infinite copyright is what's ridiculous (patents too).
I'd say put a 5-7 or 14 year duration on works like the original copyright laws had. These constant extensions are the real absurdity.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoI don't disagree with you on this point. But the fact that our copyright system went a little overboard isn't justification to allow extremely evil companies blanket immunity from prosecution for the wide variety of abuses certain major tech companies profit in. Section 230 in particular has been trotted out as a defense in far too many scenarios where no defense should have been adequate.
- cromwellian 8y agoExtremely evil? For links with text summarization algorithms that extract a sentence or two? As I said in another post, as if late 2016 (the latest article I could find), no analyst could determine if YouTube ever made a profit, and there's some suspicion it still is losing money because Google won't break out its earnings in quarterly reports. And YouTube one could early at least offers a system that lets content creators takedown content, or monetize it. In light of this, the Chapter 13 stuff is vast overkill, and quite obviously, regulatory capture.