3 ms·
"Temporary"? 100 years is far from temporary.
by iwwr 15y ago
"Temporary"? 100 years is far from temporary.
- _delirium 15y agoI agree it's gotten a bit ridiculous, but I also agree with the substance of the historical correction: copyright was initially about providing a temporary monopoly on copying and distribution, not just for guaranteeing proper attribution. The original monopoly period was considerably shorter, though.
- repsilat 15y agoMore ridiculous to me than the long terms is the perpetual extension - that copyright terms are increased regularly to prevent works from entering the public domain. The US Supreme Court ruled that protection "forever minus a day" (as Larry Lessig put it) is not incongruous with the definition of copyright as a "temporary monopoly".
- Silhouette 15y agoI have a small hope that the recent review in the UK and our government's current political drive to win over small companies will act as some sort of catalyst for at least starting change in the right direction. Even more than the Gowers review a few years ago, this latest survey describes the current copyright system bluntly as being unfit for purpose in the Internet age. Combine that with the disaster on top of a screw-up surrounded by mess that is HADOPI in France (how many laws have they and their agents clearly broken now?) and we might actually make some headway in the coming months. I may actually go and visit my MP to discuss this issue in person (as opposed to writing, which I have occasionally done in the past but which I suspect doesn't make the same impact as someone looking you in the eye and saying you're doing it wrong for reasons X, Y and Z).
- Silhouette 15y agoI certainly agree that the current implementation in many jurisdictions is far from the spirit of the original idea and leaves much to be desired. Still, copyright isn't about an author's right to credit/fair attribution.