View Single Post
Old 05-08-2014, 09:44 AM   #79
Ninjalawyer
Guru
Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ninjalawyer ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Ninjalawyer's Avatar
 
Posts: 826
Karma: 18573626
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Canada
Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)
Quote:
Originally Posted by petrucci View Post
As I stated above, I believe that works that have value should be copyright. I also believe that a reasonable period extends, at the very minimum, until the artist dies.
My question was a simple one, and that only half answered it. You think, at minimum, copyright should be until the death of the artist, great. But there's a lot of time beyond that. Do you think it should end at the artist's death? How about 5 years after that? 10 years? 70 years? The heat-death of the universe?

I ask because there's no point in the two of us arguing if we agree on the same point, even if we arrive at that point by different means.

Maybe one more question: your arguments to Sir Ralph seem to be based on economics, the idea that short copyright somehow undermines capitalism. If there was evidence that current copyright systems in the US are an economic drag (so "undermine capitalism"), would you agree that a shorter copyright period would be appropriate?

Last edited by Ninjalawyer; 05-08-2014 at 12:41 PM.
Ninjalawyer is offline   Reply With Quote