I'm not defending long copyright terms (I think 14 years is plausible). But the answer to your question is "it allows people to invest to create annuities that pay them for decades, and pay their children" Should you be allowed to save money for 50 years and pass it on to kids?https://twitter.com/ee_elephant/status/1124018768286556163 …
-
-
(Status: unsure) I heard that Baum lost sales on late Oz books to competition from reprints of the earlier books that had fallen out of copyright.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a reasonable argument. Surely there's a point of diminishing returns, though, right? Especially since we're not just talking about novels, we're talking about 100% of modern entertainment and culture. With "fair use" protections being chipped away... (1/2)
-
(2/2) what's a reasonable amount of time before you should be able to freely quote/reference/meme clips from The Wire? If we're strictly enforcing current copyright law, lots of what we think of as normal interaction becomes illegal.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hey, by that argument, patents should last forever too. Why should people who produce entertainment be more entitled to capitalize on their inventions than people who actually invent useful things?
-
I'm not making the argument; I'm merely offering an existence proof that the argument exists (contra someone else who saw NO argument for it) As I said up thread I'm in favor of shorter
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.