Make your own joke about it, I'm fucking tired (of this shit and literally)
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (47)
sorted by:
i'm fully fine with returning to the original copyright as stated in the constitution. you get a set period to make your money through exclusivity, and then you're done. make it count.
It is. The problem is that Disney lobbied to male it "life of the author plus 125 some odd years” in the 2000s, which is insane.
I prefer progressive copyright. To copyright something, you submit all relevant material to the National Copyright Library which also acts as an archive. It costs a fee to do so, which maintains the Library.
The fee is $1 for the first year, to allow anyone to copyright their work. The second year is $2, third year is $4, doubling every year until no one wants to pay it and the work reverts to public domain.
This way a five or even ten year copyright is reasonable, but 20 would be unlikely unless the work was pretty popular, and upwards of 50 would be nuts.
Intellectual property tax.
That makes sense because it provides a release valve for new companies to come in and demonopolize unexploited properties that have become stale and are taking up space in the market. Actual property tax works the same way (especially in commercial districts), though I don't think it's fair in that situation because you're talking about literal property which they tell us we own, not rent from the government.
(I don't know the technical name but other types of intangible resources that have this quality are shelf space in stores - which the store owner regulates - and the public airwaves.)
Add returning ALL laws to only what's stated in the constitution and you've got yourself a deal.
based and accepted