• @SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    1462 years ago

    Copyright is far too long and should only last at most 20 years.

    Actually, George Washington would agree with me if he was still alive. He and the other founding fathers created the notion of copyright, which was to last 14 years. Then big corporations changed the laws in their favor.

    • @Sanyanov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      232 years ago

      Hot extreme opinion: copyright shouldn’t exist, and authors should be covered by other means, particularly public funding based on usage numbers and donations.

      • @merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        The world got essentially all classical music, the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, etc. without the need for copyright. Shakespeare’s work wasn’t protected by copyrights either. So, it’s not like amazing works of art require copyright. They’ll happen regardless. It’s more about how artists are incentivized to create and who profits.

        • @Sanyanov@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Bonus point: they will be about passion, not the money.

          Not saying money shouldn’t be there - we need to support free creators so they could make a living and pursue their passion - but copyright is too often not about that in particular, being owned often not by the authors and squeezing everything if the creation gets popular.

    • @SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 years ago

      Totally agree. “Intellectual property” shouldn’t be a thing. Yes, writing a novel or recording a song is work, but so is building a house. Craftspersons don’t get royalties from people using the widgets that they make; they get paid only for the first sale of the product.

      That said, intangibles like written and recorded media are qualitatively different, in that they can be effortlessly copied. Without some sort of legal protection, creators wouldn’t be able to profit from even that first sale. A limited-term copyright is an okay compromise.

      But now that corporations can “own” intangible works nearly indefinitely, they’re getting greedy, and are applying that to physical objects that they sell through the subscription model. And it’s bullshit.

      Yes, absolutely, roll back copyright terms to 14 years.

    • Iron Lynx
      link
      fedilink
      22 years ago

      This. If you invent some machine or process that will change the world, you have twenty years to make your fortune, after which you will be out-competed on price by cheap Chinese knock-offs. But if you write a book or a song or make a film, if it takes off you’re set for life. And not only that, your descendants will be set for another seventy years.

      20 years is quite short. But life+70 is too long. I’ve seen one more conservative take that would like to see 50 years for creative works. That would give enough time for two bouts of nostalgia, and meanwhile it would mean that Mozart and Beethoven would be joined by Hendrix and Elvis, that Shakespeare and Shelley would be joined by the likes of Orwell. You & I would be free to make new James Bond stories (and probably do a better job than the ones that currently have the film rights)

      • @SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        I think 20 years is a good amount of time. First, it matches how long patents last. Second, it gives enough time to milk the copyright to make lots of money from a creative work while letting customers see what innovation happens when it goes public domain in their lifetime.

    • TheWoozy
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I’m pretty sure most people share this opinion.