• sugar_in_your_tea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Exactly. Copyright used to last 14 years and required an application for a one-time extension. Let’s go back to that.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      100%.

      The whole point was to “promote the useful arts” by allowing creators SOME time to make money off their work. People would be way less likely to write a book, a news artucle, make a movie, etc if someone else could just instantly sell copies and you couldn’t support yourself with the work.

      But the whole point was to give you enough protections to make it worth your while.

      If you can’t make enough money off of the work in 14 (or 28) years for it to have been worth it, then it’s not worth it.

      No one has ever said “if this isn’t going to give me the exclusive right to make copies for 80 years after my death, then there’s no point making it”. And that was the only point to copyright. Doing the minimum to allow people to realistically make new stuff.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Exactly. This was created like 200 years ago when books took years to print and distribute. Since information travels much more quickly now, a work is probably going to succeed or fail in the first 5 years. So drop 14 to 10 and it’s probably more than enough.

        Companies can still use trademark indefinitely, so they still get their brand protections. Screw modern copyright.