3 ms·
The current term in the US is like life +70 years, or something. While 10 is arbitrary, I like it because it is much closer to balancing incentive for creativi
by prepend 7mo ago
The current term in the US is like life +70 years, or something.
While 10 is arbitrary, I like it because it is much closer to balancing incentive for creativity vs stifling creativity.
I make software and data. It’s worth protecting. But I think the harm from copyright protection has been greater than the benefit.
Framing it as people who want reasonable copyright as anti-creator is so not cool and avoids discussion.
- acomjean 7mo agocan’t IP be sold to a company that is “alive” for as long as it’s financially viable. I always wonder when copyright runs out for artist who sold their collections to companies.
- Maken 7mo agoWhat is "financially viable"? Just hoarding copyrighted materials and not distributing them in order to create artificial scarcity could meet that criteria.
- Arainach 7mo ago> I always wonder when copyright runs out for artist who sold their collections to companies. This question is straightforward to answer with a single web search, so if you "always wonder" try looking. In this case it's the creator, not the owner.
- acomjean 7mo agowhat if the creator is a company? They are allowed to hold copyrights. Though one answers is: 95/120 years. "If the work is a joint work, the term lasts for seventy years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire and anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright protection is 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter" https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/ https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/
- Arainach 7mo ago[dead]
- freejazz 7mo ago>While 10 is arbitrary, I like it because it is much closer to balancing incentive for creativity vs stifling creativity. You're the one avoiding discussion by just declaring this is true