4 ms·
1,000 years is too long IMO.
by VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
1,000 years is too long IMO.
- loeg 5y agoWhy 200 years, but not 1000?
- anigbrowl 5y agoWhy should the children get the benefit of copyrights at all? If the work made anything during the author's lifetime they already inherit that benefit, and then you are saying they should get another lifetime's worth of revenue ownership as well ¯\(°_o)/¯ Also, many works are not by human authors but teams of contract workers who assigned their copyright interest to an employer for a paycheck and waived any long-term interest therein. Obviously said employer wishes to recoup their investment but I'm not convinced that the children of the original shareholders need monopoly protection. 95 years is already longer than the average human lifetime. Betty White died the other day at the age of almost 100; imagine if the 95-year erm had always been the in effect, and consider that only works published before she reached the age of 5 would have become available during her lifetime.
- CRConrad 5y agoYHBT. YHL. HAND.