5 ms·

Copyright lasts way too long.

• eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Agree. A year seems a lot more reasonable.
  • esarbe 6y ago
    Are you sure about that? Myself, I think that copyright today has been grotesquely distorted away from its original intent; the furthering of the arts. Especially in the U.S. and E.U., the media oligopoly has had enormous success in transforming (cough perverting) copyright into a mechanism that benefits the copyright holder to the detriment of anyone else. But we see that copyright can also be an effective tool for protection of the arts and sciences; see copyleft. Here we have an ingenious way of turning copyright on it's head, by protecting the rights of all involved parties. (Stallman might be a nutcase, but if that's the case, he's a genius nutcase.) So I think it's fair to have 'longer' copyright periods. Longer than a year, I mean. The duration we have in patent law (~20 years) seems rather fair to me. Enough to turn (some) profit, not enough to rob four generations of the stories and characters that were an important part of their childhood's culture.
    • eyelidlessness 6y ago
      I was being somewhat glib. I guess I should’ve included some kind of sarcmark. I agree of course that it’s noble to find less pathological ways to protect the people who truly create. I don’t know if copyright is the right solution (or if it’s not), or what kind of timeframe would bring the most benefit with the least harm. But I certainly think the current implementation is so absurd as to be worth challenging.
      • esarbe 6y ago
        > But I certainly think the current implementation is so absurd as to be worth challenging. Absolutely.