Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieBird
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.
|
Are you saying that the terrible burden of borrowing a book or God forbid purchasing one for entertainment is the same as not having access to lifesaving medication or food or spaceflight?
Helen