Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
It's entirely irrelevant what a few people in a different country 250-odd years ago thought was its purpose in THEIR society. What we have to deal with is what its usefulness is in TODAY'S society, which is very different to that of the late 18th century.
|
Is the rest of the Constitution irrelevant because it is old? How about the Bill of Rights?
This is a ridiculous argument. Our country's laws are founded and based on a very specific set of rules that are NOT changed on a whim.
I believe copyright should be nearer to what it was at the beginning of the Republic. Copyright has moved much farther from the original than patent law has.
The Copyright Act of 1790 had a 14 year copyright term, plus an option 14 year extension. I would say that we should be at a similiar term, changed only due to increased human lifespan. 28 years was a long time, but not a life time if you were fortunate enough to live into your 50s. Quite likely close to it unless you were in your twenties or something. So it was basically covering the span from young man to 50ish (realistically quite long). Given the average lifespan has crept up quite a bit into the 60s (67 worldwide) I would say the copyright period should be equivalent. Something like 40 years or so. Maybe 48.
Certainly not entire lifetimes, nor multiple lifetimes or centuries.
There was a concept modern hardcore capitalists forget about pre and immediately post-Revolution America. A concept that comes off as "kinda commie" or something like that. It's that some things are for the benefit of all citizens. Sure, intellectual property should benefit the creator. But the reason wasn't "so the creator can make the money they are entitled to" or something like that. It was for the good of everyone - to promote science and the arts. FOR THE PEOPLE.