Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done
by ejb999 on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:18PM
(#29788492)
why limit it to books or other creative creations - if you buy a house, you get exclusive use for 20 years - after that, other people just get to move into the unused bedrooms - after all, your kids are probably grown by now and you don't need them anymore.
How is this different - why should I be entitled to get, for free, something someone else created and owns.
Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done
by cogman10 on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:32PM
(#29788628)
Because we are talking about the ability to copy or mimic things when talking about IP/patent laws. We are not talking about physical goods, but instead ideas.
It's a crime to steal someone's bible even though the bible texts are (largely) in public domain.
It is not the same to compare a thing to a concept. I can copy someone's bitcoin hash all day long, but I don't own that hash simply be copying it into a text document. Same principle.
Anyone should be able to write and sell a story about Superman or Mickey.
Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done
by Matumio on Monday January 03, 2022 @07:17PM
(#29789079)
Oh no, you are now required to watch this damned cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 (A one minute ELI5 explanation about the difference between physical and intellectual property.)
Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done
by Dylan16807 on Monday January 03, 2022 @06:24PM
(#29788551)
If you build a house, other people can copy it after 20 years.
Suddenly it doesn't sound unreasonable at all.
> something someone else created and owns
The way someone should "own" an idea is exactly what's being disputed...
Would you not have taken the photo or sold it had you known the timeframe for it's value would be limited to 20 years? I suspect that, yes, you'd still take that photo. So long as the timespan is long enough to benefit the creator (and thus, encourage creativity) but not so long as to forever lock up the creation, then I see no harm in a much shorter copyright timeframe.
Why should I care if a 20 year old compiler or text editor ends up having closed source versions? And, on the flip side, wouldn't it be neat if we had Windows XP source code in the public domain?
Now consider the fact that with a 20 year lifespan on copyright every streaming service would have access to everything published in 2001 and earlier. 1 service could give you a bonkers amount of content.