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 Tuesday January 04, 2022 @11:06AM (#29796313)

I didn’t argue that IP was property. I responded to the suggestion that the reason to have a limited copyright term is because enforcement is taxpayer funded. I’m pointing out that this reasoning is inconsistent and has no strong basis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Copyright doesn't need 95 years to get the job done by labawi on Wednesday January 05, 2022 @02:57PM (#29814101)

I'm pointing out your reasoning is unfounded non sequitur. Physical property does indeed revert to public domain, hence it does not make sense to add requisites for release of intellectual restrictions. Requiring public funding for only-temporarily-private IP would make things more inconsistent.

[ Parent | on HN ]