4 ms·
>> Copyright didn't exist before 1710. Art sure did though. A protection of 7 years seems fine by that measure. This seems utterly arbitrary. I fail to unders
by tanseydavid 3y ago
>> Copyright didn't exist before 1710. Art sure did though. A protection of 7 years seems fine by that measure.
This seems utterly arbitrary. I fail to understand your logic here.
- ProxCoques 3y agoPlease accept my apologies. I mean that the ostensible reason for copyright is to protect and thereby incentivise the production of artistic work. By extension, without copyright, artists would not create anything. But artistic work existed before copyright was created in law in 1710. Ergo, protection of 7 years would seem more than generous when, for example, builders are not paid every time somebody enters their buildings, or lawyers are not paid every time somebody reads the contracts they wrote.