3 ms·

20 years is not unreasonable. The creator is likely still alive. Why shouldn't they get paid? Why should they see their creations get tarnished by spin offs the

• dnautics 7y ago
  Perhaps spinoffs should be the domain of trademark law and not copyright law.
• whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Reasonable depends on how much you view copyright laws to be a burden versus being something that encourages creation. There's no end to the list of reasons why copyright laws are shitty and really serve no purpose to anyone other than the extremely wealthy. I find it very reasonable to say that 80% of that shitty purpose is accomplished in the first 20 years. I personally have no moral issue with pirating because I believe anything put out for public consumption is just that - in the hands of the public. I think copyright law is about as dumb as me saying something in public and then charging people to quote me. Even with zero copyright law we'd still see a tremendous about of money and investment into media. Even with piracy we rarely see movies of a watchable definition on torrent sites while still in theathers, people (including me) would still pay for music streaming, ad-free Youtube, and so on. There's still plenty of money to be made without ridiculous lawsuits and bullying and harassment and exploitation.
• TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  On the other hand, why should the next generation of artists be prevented from building on works that have been iconic parts of culture since before they were born, just like artists always have in the past?