3 ms·
It should be "20 years or whenever it's not commercially available, whichever comes first" Otherwise, we'll still see companies make stuff and kill it and sit
by maxsilver 2y ago
It should be "20 years or whenever it's not commercially available, whichever comes first"
Otherwise, we'll still see companies make stuff and kill it and sit on it for decades. (Often binning fully-finished releases without ever letting it be sold ever -- see Discovery and Disney's recent releases)
Preservation should start the minute access is threatened, not some decades later when it's likely too late.
- crazygringo 2y agoThat's more of a question of weird tax law quirks related to corporate mergers, not copyright. It's not generally profitable to make stuff and then not sell it immediately. And I certainly don't want to start a precedent where people are forced to publish things they don't want to. That's kind of the polar opposite of freedom and liberty.
- kelnos 2y ago> Often binning fully-finished releases without ever letting it be sold ever If something hasn't been released yet, and never will be, then why does it matter? It might as well not exist. No one should be obligated to publish something they want to keep private, for whatever reason.
- maxsilver 2y ago> No one should be obligated to publish something they want to keep private, for whatever reason. That logic works fine for a single author. Totally agree. But it breaks down when a team of 200 people create a work, and 199 of them want to release it, but the last 1 person does not (which is the case most often seen today)