Patents grant a monopoly on a method or invention, even if someone else comes up with the same thing independently.
Copyright is for an individual fixed expression of an idea.
So it's right that Patents should be for a shorter time. But copyright has certainly been extended much too far.
I don't like the way copyright moved to a lifetime+x years basis. It's much too random. To compensate for this randomness we have the ridiculously long fixed time added on to the random length.
It would be much better to have a set fixed length, with some caveat of "or the lifetime or the author", which makes for a much more fair and certain copyright length.
I think something definite like "50 years from publication, or the lifetime of the author, whichever is longer" would be best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone71
For those who favor a copyright term based on the lifetime of the artist, why do artistic works deserve so much more protection than technical works? Patents (in the USA) are only for 20 years. Books copyrighted before I was born (1969) could still be protected after I'm gone, even assuming I live another 40 years.
|