you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 26 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Well in theory the idea is that it encourages people to create more by making doing so more lucrative. May have even made some sense back in the era before digitization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I could see that working for the relative short term, but the renewal of what should be public domain copyrights is pretty insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah even if you are pro-copyright as a way to encourage artistic creation there is no justification for how insanely long works stay under copyright. Or for banning free filesharing of copyrighted works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago

    I haven't ment anyone who supports a post life of the author copyright protection yet. IMO ~20-30 years seems solid. Enough time to express your ideas and elaborate on them, but short enough where authors will be driven to make more than one IP. That's also more inline with what it used to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    Right, copyright was meant to give a profit incentive to creators, but the effectively infinite copyright we have now mainly gives profit incentive to large companies who can horde creative works, like Paramount+ in the above case.

    It’s breaking the original compact where we give temporary exclusivity at the reward of more creation. Now it’s effectively permanent exclusivity, with creativity locked up by which obese monster can sit on the biggest hoard of treasure

  • source
  • parent