One can still want much looser copyright. For example, 14 years by default, pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time (as compensation for stealing from the public domain). At least I'm willing to call extended copyright terms stealing if we're going to call format shifting and other personal use cases stealing.

> stealing from the public domain

How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

I don't believe that ideas/intellectual work should be considered property. I will concede that granting a temporary monopoly through copyright or patents can maybe be a means of incentivizing innovation and creative work, but I'm not convinced it is the only means of doing so, and the longer that monopoly lasts, the more it can have the inverse effect of stifling innovation that builds on existing innovations.

At least in the US, copyright is a monopoly on certain rights for a limited time. By locking those rights for an extended time, it is stretching that definition. The time to benefit from your creations is in that time window. That goes for my creations, yours, and everyone else too. Public domain is patient, but I don't think it is worth depriving it of moderately older works with which others can start to use as a foundation to build upon.

> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.

No I agree it’s a poor argument when looked at either extreme. I think most folks would likely agree that some taxation is beneficial, albeit not a 100% tax rate, which would be broadly analogous to the argument that copyright shouldn’t exist.

The person you replied to wasn't making the argument that copyright shouldn't exist. Their argument is in line with "some taxation" where it goes into the public domain after a while, and they only (potentially) called extended copyright terms stealing from the public domain.

> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

don't you benefit from taxes?

> pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time

Doesn't work with DRM protected media. Version 1 will be pulled from circulation shortly before the time runs out, version 2 will be slightly altered and qualify for a brand new 14 year copyright. Buyers of version 1 will not receive any refunds and will be expected to pay the full price for version 2.

Well, there should be laws to protect consumers from DRM, instead of laws to prevent consumers from circumventing DRM for legal uses, like say consuming the content they paid for on the device of their choice.

version 1 is now in the public domain - What's the issue?

Apart from having to crack DRM (which has not been a problem so far) I think this should work. Of course, DRM provisions should stop working when a DRM-encumbered media reaches the public domain.

That just privileges the rich. Just return to the original idea of copyright and limit it to 12 years.

The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software. No need for copyright or anything remotely similar. Code being copyrightable would just be getting in the way at that point.

But in a world where that is politically infeasible, we have to use whatever tools we have at hand to get as close as we can. And, unfortunately, the tool we happen to have is the modern copyright regime.

> The more direct solution would be a law that required distributing human-editable code alongside software.

Hmm okay yeah, I buy that. Good rebuttal, I retract my comment :)

It's also possible such a law (in the US) would violate the first amendment (being "compelled speech").

Laws are just made up by people, we can make up new ones if we want.

I mean, there's a reasonable argument that large swathes of current copyright law in the US also violate the First Amendment. I haven't read it yet, but the book No Law from Stanford University Press[1] makes that argument and has been on my to-read list for a while.

[1]: https://www.sup.org/books/law/no-law

Do food nutrition labels violate the first amendment, being compelled speech?

But nobody is compelling anyone to write and release software. It's no different to requiring food to include a list of ingredients or products to include safety standards references etc.

We can see with current legal situation around AI learning and data scraping how companies and their lawyers has starting to work around the issue of not having data protected by copyright. The general alternatives to copyright seems to be TOS and contract law, except for Hollywood which went and drafted their own special law.

Downloading software from a server means you need to have access to that server, possible through an account. There is also a fair amount of precedence covering the enforceability of TOS and limitations of server access, especially when a company earn profit on intentionally ignoring them.

Contract law has its own issue, and copyright is generally seen as much easier to understand and enforce, but if contract law can be used to control how software and data is used after a user has downloaded it then it could be used for something like GPL.