7 ms·

Lifetime of the author plus some time seems fair to me for copyright. And for patents, that's an exchange, the public sees the details and provides protection f

Lifetime of the author plus some time seems fair to me for copyright. And for patents, that's an exchange, the public sees the details and provides protection for some years. My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright.

Archit3ch 5y ago
> My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright. Software patents cover the invention. Software copyright (presumably) cannot cover software that has not been created yet.
midasuni 5y ago
Why does it seem fair?
- unityByFreedom 5y ago
  Because you deserve to be compensated for your work. And maybe there is value in allowing you to sell your work for continued publication and protection against copying. The idea is that copyright encourages quality content. I don't know what the exact duration should be, but lifetime of author as a basis plus some time seems fair to me.
  - xfz 5y ago
    Does it even have to be their lifetime? 50 years from creation should suffice and they can put some of the profits during this time into a personal pension plan like the rest of us have to.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      50 years is too long. It is basically saying everything culturally relevant from someone’s youth should not enter the public domain until they are pretty much dead. At which point no one is going to car about the copyrighted material. 20 years seems like a sufficient term, I would even go for 10 or 15. Creators were still creating before copyright terms were extended to infinity.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    Why more than lifetime? Why not lifetime? Or 59 years? Or 27? Or 13? Or 6 months?
  - hajile 5y ago
    Thought experiments are inherently thoughts. The argument is actually that copyright encourages more public works without regard to quality. Copyright should be for a fixed number of years so that everyone receives equal benefit and that time period should be closer to 10-20 years rather than a hundred.
thesimon 5y ago
Why is it fair? After you are dead, no copyright protection can convince you to write more books. After you are dead, there is no point in protection.
- DnDGrognard 5y ago
  So you cannot provide for your children then? you basically saying that on death the state should confiscate for example your house.
  - Scandiravian 5y ago
    A copyright holder will already have earned money on it during a fixed time period. Your argument is a straw man. Why should author's have a different right to provide for their children more so than other professions? There's something inherently unjust in protecting the works based on the death of the original author. A 25 year old will, on average, enjoy a significantly longer period of protection than a 75 year old.
    - DnDGrognard 5y ago
      Why is "unjust" and wanting some thing for free is not a valid legal argument here. And TBH with all due respect trotting out rhetorical devices like "straw man" does sound like sealioning.
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      So the 25yo with a wife and child finishes a book, signs with a publisher, and dies. The book sells a million copies and the publisher refuses to pay the widow and child anything because the work is now in the public domain. Justice has been done? I think a simple period of time, like 7 or 14 years, or even 50, makes more sense.
      - DnDGrognard 5y ago
        Or an author has a disabled child who will require support for life?
grishka 5y ago
No, it's anything but fair. Those heirs did nothing at all. Why should they benefit from these works? On the opposite, copyright should not be transferable. It should last maybe several years, and that's it. Only then most people would have any semblance of respect for it. And then something entering the public domain would be actually an event people would be looking forward to. Right now everyone considers copyright to be an effectively eternal thing. It's also really depressing that the entirety of our pop culture is copyrighted, mostly by large faceless corporations.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > Why should they benefit from these works? You are young aspiring author. You have a family. You publish a greatly successful novel/series which would bring you $10M annually for at least 30 years. You and your SO die in a car crash. Your children, 3 and 5 y.o. now without a parents.. and without ANY part of that probable $300M. Good luck, children, you did nothing at all.
  - grishka 5y ago
    If I were to die, I wouldn't care the slightest about what happens next. As far as I'm concerned, the entire universe ceases to exist that very moment.
    - unityByFreedom 5y ago
      Do you not appreciate the world that was prepared for you? Safe, healthy, entertaining, etc. Much of this work was done with future generations in mind. You could throw evolution in there too. It's nice to not be limited to a single cell. On top of that, many people enjoy giving back, either to their kids or community. Preparing nice things for people after your death can bring comfort in life. That may come in the form of money, open sourced code, etc.
      - grishka 5y ago
        Honestly, the existence of the universe is meaningless to me if my consciousness is to somehow irreversibly disappear from it in the future. I find this whole idea of eventual mandatory death extremely cruel, and those who romanticize it cringey. So many people hurry to live their lives because "life is short". So many people make so many irrational, bad decisions for the same reason. And so many people accept this as some kind of immutable fact. I'm looking forward to all that life extension/rejuvenation research that's gaining momentum right now. I don't want to die. Ever. I wish I could contribute to it, but my skill set isn't very fitting for this purpose. I doubt any one of the companies doing this kind of research needs a screaming fast android app or a java backend.

Archit3ch 5y ago

> My major gripe is with software patents which are already covered by copyright. Software patents cover the invention. Software copyright (presumably) cannot cover software that has not been created yet.

midasuni 5y ago

Why does it seem fair?

unityByFreedom 5y ago
Because you deserve to be compensated for your work. And maybe there is value in allowing you to sell your work for continued publication and protection against copying. The idea is that copyright encourages quality content. I don't know what the exact duration should be, but lifetime of author as a basis plus some time seems fair to me.
- xfz 5y ago
  Does it even have to be their lifetime? 50 years from creation should suffice and they can put some of the profits during this time into a personal pension plan like the rest of us have to.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    50 years is too long. It is basically saying everything culturally relevant from someone’s youth should not enter the public domain until they are pretty much dead. At which point no one is going to car about the copyrighted material. 20 years seems like a sufficient term, I would even go for 10 or 15. Creators were still creating before copyright terms were extended to infinity.
- midasuni 5y ago
  Why more than lifetime? Why not lifetime? Or 59 years? Or 27? Or 13? Or 6 months?
- hajile 5y ago
  Thought experiments are inherently thoughts. The argument is actually that copyright encourages more public works without regard to quality. Copyright should be for a fixed number of years so that everyone receives equal benefit and that time period should be closer to 10-20 years rather than a hundred.

thesimon 5y ago

Why is it fair? After you are dead, no copyright protection can convince you to write more books. After you are dead, there is no point in protection.

DnDGrognard 5y ago
So you cannot provide for your children then? you basically saying that on death the state should confiscate for example your house.
- Scandiravian 5y ago
  A copyright holder will already have earned money on it during a fixed time period. Your argument is a straw man. Why should author's have a different right to provide for their children more so than other professions? There's something inherently unjust in protecting the works based on the death of the original author. A 25 year old will, on average, enjoy a significantly longer period of protection than a 75 year old.
  - DnDGrognard 5y ago
    Why is "unjust" and wanting some thing for free is not a valid legal argument here. And TBH with all due respect trotting out rhetorical devices like "straw man" does sound like sealioning.
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    So the 25yo with a wife and child finishes a book, signs with a publisher, and dies. The book sells a million copies and the publisher refuses to pay the widow and child anything because the work is now in the public domain. Justice has been done? I think a simple period of time, like 7 or 14 years, or even 50, makes more sense.
    - DnDGrognard 5y ago
      Or an author has a disabled child who will require support for life?

grishka 5y ago

No, it's anything but fair. Those heirs did nothing at all. Why should they benefit from these works? On the opposite, copyright should not be transferable. It should last maybe several years, and that's it. Only then most people would have any semblance of respect for it. And then something entering the public domain would be actually an event people would be looking forward to. Right now everyone considers copyright to be an effectively eternal thing. It's also really depressing that the entirety of our pop culture is copyrighted, mostly by large faceless corporations.

justsomehnguy 5y ago
> Why should they benefit from these works? You are young aspiring author. You have a family. You publish a greatly successful novel/series which would bring you $10M annually for at least 30 years. You and your SO die in a car crash. Your children, 3 and 5 y.o. now without a parents.. and without ANY part of that probable $300M. Good luck, children, you did nothing at all.
- grishka 5y ago
  If I were to die, I wouldn't care the slightest about what happens next. As far as I'm concerned, the entire universe ceases to exist that very moment.
  - unityByFreedom 5y ago
    Do you not appreciate the world that was prepared for you? Safe, healthy, entertaining, etc. Much of this work was done with future generations in mind. You could throw evolution in there too. It's nice to not be limited to a single cell. On top of that, many people enjoy giving back, either to their kids or community. Preparing nice things for people after your death can bring comfort in life. That may come in the form of money, open sourced code, etc.
    - grishka 5y ago
      Honestly, the existence of the universe is meaningless to me if my consciousness is to somehow irreversibly disappear from it in the future. I find this whole idea of eventual mandatory death extremely cruel, and those who romanticize it cringey. So many people hurry to live their lives because "life is short". So many people make so many irrational, bad decisions for the same reason. And so many people accept this as some kind of immutable fact. I'm looking forward to all that life extension/rejuvenation research that's gaining momentum right now. I don't want to die. Ever. I wish I could contribute to it, but my skill set isn't very fitting for this purpose. I doubt any one of the companies doing this kind of research needs a screaming fast android app or a java backend.