• psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah even if you are pro-copyright as a way to encourage artistic creation there is no justification for how insanely long works stay under copyright. Or for banning free filesharing of copyrighted works.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        I haven’t ment anyone who supports a post life of the author copyright protection yet. IMO ~20-30 years seems solid. Enough time to express your ideas and elaborate on them, but short enough where authors will be driven to make more than one IP. That’s also more inline with what it used to be.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Right, copyright was meant to give a profit incentive to creators, but the effectively infinite copyright we have now mainly gives profit incentive to large companies who can horde creative works, like Paramount+ in the above case.

        It’s breaking the original compact where we give temporary exclusivity at the reward of more creation. Now it’s effectively permanent exclusivity, with creativity locked up by which obese monster can sit on the biggest hoard of treasure

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      But if copyright didn’t generate profit for 3-4 generations how will my grandchildren buy yachts?!