100% agree. trash copyright laws. all of them. keep patent laws: 7 years max and not transferable from original individual(s). if the company wants to keep the idea they can pay the person(s) that created them.
copyright was supposed to fund new works of art by funding the original creator. that was a jewish lie. what these laws have done is enrich middlemen, speculators, and lawyers.
Yeah a small period like that is fine. Most of the money is made during that period anyways. Being able to buy the copyright for something with none of the original creators involved is very nonsensical.
The Constitution says "...securing for limited times to authors..." The original copyright law in the U.S. was for 7 years and allowed a one time extension for another 7 years. I think that's reasonable. The current law is ridiculous though, life of the author plus 70 years. There's no way that life+70 is a "limited time".
I tend to agree considering the current broken state of law, though I think the "middlemen, speculators, and lawyers" is the real crux of the problem here, so take that out of the equation and I'm actually fine with a perpetual copyright for the life of the author - as long as he's still selling the original work. Revised editions don't count, and no transferring to other parties. (but feel free to license exclusive rights to a big company while you're alive)
100% agree. trash copyright laws. all of them. keep patent laws: 7 years max and not transferable from original individual(s). if the company wants to keep the idea they can pay the person(s) that created them.
copyright was supposed to fund new works of art by funding the original creator. that was a jewish lie. what these laws have done is enrich middlemen, speculators, and lawyers.
Yeah a small period like that is fine. Most of the money is made during that period anyways. Being able to buy the copyright for something with none of the original creators involved is very nonsensical.
The Constitution says "...securing for limited times to authors..." The original copyright law in the U.S. was for 7 years and allowed a one time extension for another 7 years. I think that's reasonable. The current law is ridiculous though, life of the author plus 70 years. There's no way that life+70 is a "limited time".
I tend to agree considering the current broken state of law, though I think the "middlemen, speculators, and lawyers" is the real crux of the problem here, so take that out of the equation and I'm actually fine with a perpetual copyright for the life of the author - as long as he's still selling the original work. Revised editions don't count, and no transferring to other parties. (but feel free to license exclusive rights to a big company while you're alive)
There's no such thing as taking reality out of the equation.
That's why you draft laws while taking into consideration how it could be abused.
Murphy's Law and all that.
Just make it a set number of years.
Making it for the life of the author means that amoral "middlemen, speculators, and lawyers" would just kill you if it's cheaper than licensing.