You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
8

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Very limited copyright and patent is necessary for many things. We have no limits on our copyrights now and that is complete bullshit. They keep extending it when it should be contracting. There is no reason it should last more than just a very few years (2-5) and it should only cover direct copy and not derivative works.

1
9

[–] UchihaMadara 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

i'd say 15-25 years is appropriate. 2-5 years is pretty short for someone who may have spent that amount of time or more on their books.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

i'd say 15-25 years is appropriate. 2-5 years is pretty short for someone who may have spent that amount of time or more on their books.

Sounds like you're going into labour theory of value there: I spent X amount of work on my product, therefore it's worth X and deserves X worth of protection. In practice, value and work aren't related. I can put an hours work beachcombing in Alaska, find a gold nugget, and my work will have been worth $100,000. Or I could spend years doing it and find a lump of iron pyrite, in which case those years of labour were worth a few cents.

You can spend an entire lifetime writing a book, or a few weeks. There's no way some government agency can calculate how valuable an intangible work is and how much return you deserve.

Fortunately markets are pretty good at this. Consumers are generally willing to reward an artist who's producing good stuff, even if they could get it without paying. They're also pretty harsh on ripoffs and copycats. If someone starts selling an identical product, even if it's cheaper, consumers will mostly disdain it. And if a well known artist copies an emerging one it can ruin their career.

0
2

[–] Plavonica 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

books.

2-5 per book is good enough. Publish or die.

0
0

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I can see 5-10, even with technical stuff. Hell, on many technical books they are out of date way before 15-25 years.

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Very limited copyright and patent is necessary for many things.

Can you give an example? I can't think of any.

0
5

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

What stops someone from taking your book and just making copies of it for sale without paying you? Or taking your invention and just making it themselves for sale? In an environment like that, why would anyone create anything new that required them to invest any time or money into it since anyone else could just take their creation and copy it directly without having to put any time or money into the job? Patent and copyright are to reward a creator with a very limited time frame of exclusivity. When very limited in scope and time it provides enough benefit for people to want to invest time and money into new creations. When virtually unlimited (like now) it serves to choke out creations.