4 ms·
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
by 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 agoDoes 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 ago50 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 agoWhy more than lifetime? Why not lifetime? Or 59 years? Or 27? Or 13? Or 6 months?
- hajile 5y agoThought 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.