Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkScribe
You might not have thought that it was young but many would disagree with you -as I am sure would he. He had just turned fifty.
|
At fifty he had about thirty years of a working career. That's not young. If he couldn't make money in thirty years, he has no sympathy from me.
Maybe it's because I tend to value science more highly than art, but this whole copyright thing strikes me as offensive, in the words of an earlier poster.
If someone creates a useful invention, it only gets protection for 20 years. Why should life saving drugs, or machines that enable you to grow more food, or even
spaceflight (SpaceX, not NASA) be valued less than entertainment?
And yet, if we increased the length of a patent, it would cripple our scientific, and economic, progress. Witness the state of the software industry. I
can't in good conscience support a longer patent. And in doing so, I
can't support this insanely longer copyright term. Even if an author dies the day after publishing, the item is still controlled for 3.5 times as long as an invention.
That's just wrong.