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

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by dahart on Monday January 03, 2022 @10:23PM (#29790916)

Sure, fine. I stand corrected and remain unsatisfied by still not hearing any clear or compelling reasons to shorten copyrights. Congress isn’t extending copyrights on their own, their doing it because they’ve been asked to by businesses like Disney. The length hasn’t been extended “dramatically”, any time recently. No more dramatically than in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by kapuasuite on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @05:14AM (#29793248)

The only compelling reason is to give broader and cheaper access to past works. If you don’t find that compelling then I don’t know what to tell you. What’s the compelling argument for them to exist as is?

The big extensions came in the mid-70s and late 90s, well within living memory. According to your own link they nearly doubled the average duration and pushed it over 100 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by dahart on Tuesday January 04, 2022 @11:16AM (#29796451)

Where do you get a doubling of the average copyright term?

> What’s the compelling argument for them to exist as is?

You’re asking why does copyright exist?

[ Parent | on HN ]