Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by xwdv on Monday January 03, 2022 @05:47PM (#29788142)

How naive. This encourages killing off an author with a hitman so you can swoop in and steal extremely valuable intellectual property.

What, are you going to make an exception for authors killed in grisly murders of mysterious circumstances? Imagine if instead of paying George Lucas billions for the rights to Star Wars Disney just had him killed off for a fraction of the price.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by dragonwriter on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:18PM (#29788496)

> This encourages killing off an author with a hitman so you can swoop in and steal extremely valuable intellectual property.

No, because the property rights ceasing to exist means that there is nothing to steal. You can use what would have been exclusive under them, but so can anyone else. Property rights aren't the right to use but the right to exclude; without the right to exclude, there is no property.

(I do think taking the author’s life into account is a dumb idea, just not for that reason.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by petters on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:13PM (#29788431)

Disney would have made much less off Star Wars if it were in the public domain.

[ Parent | on HN ]