Quote:
Originally Posted by plib
So your argument is that copyright should only be extended for something that has no benefit to the public?
It has the makings of a good process. If I like something and find it of benefit I can copy it, if I don't - you can keep it as long as you like.
Gets my vote. It makes as much sense as the current system, more in fact.
|
No, that's not my argument at all. I didn't make an argument. Don't put words in my mouth. It's dishonest.
The question was why life-saving drugs were protected for a shorter time than copyrighted works. I suggested a possible reason. That was the extent of my contribution.
If you want to make the argument listed above, feel free. But don't pretend that it's my argument.