Copyright is absurdly (way way) too long

Moosichu · Aug 13, 2018

An interesting question not being discussed in this thread:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ni...roms-threatens-gaming-history-pc-world.61552/

It's worth pointing out that there aren't any strong economic or artistic reasons for any NES games not to be in the public domain by now.

And they probably would be, if it wasn't for Disney's absurd lobbying.

Recommended watching:

So what isn't really being highlighted in the aforementioned thread, it really shouldn't be illegal for ROM hosting sites to exist. 14 years (the original length of copyright in the US), is more than enough. No company makes risk assements on whether to develop a property based on how much money it could make off resales of the original in 15 years time.

EDIT:

Whilst the following article is opinionated, it does provide an interesting perspective on copyright: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html

The first error: "striking a balance"
The copyright bargain places the public first: benefit for the reading public is an end in itself; benefits (if any) for publishers are just a means toward that end. Readers' interests and publishers' interests are thus qualitatively unequal in priority. The first step in misinterpreting the purpose of copyright is the elevation of the publishers to the same level of importance as the readers.

It is often said that US copyright law is meant to "strike a balance" between the interests of publishers and readers. Those who cite this interpretation present it as a restatement of the basic position stated in the Constitution; in other words, it is supposed to be equivalent to the copyright bargain.

But the two interpretations are far from equivalent; they are different conceptually, and different in their implications. The balance concept assumes that the readers' and publishers' interests differ in importance only quantitatively, in how much weight we should give them, and in what actions they apply to. The term "stakeholders" is often used to frame the issue in this way; it assumes that all kinds of interest in a policy decision are equally important. This view rejects the qualitative distinction between the readers' and publishers' interests which is at the root of the government's participation in the copyright bargain.

The consequences of this alteration are far-reaching, because the great protection for the public in the copyright bargain—the idea that copyright privileges can be justified only in the name of the readers, never in the name of the publishers—is discarded by the "balance" interpretation. Since the interest of the publishers is regarded as an end in itself, it can justify copyright privileges; in other words, the "balance" concept says that privileges can be justified in the name of someone other than the public.

As a practical matter, the consequence of the "balance" concept is to reverse the burden of justification for changes in copyright law. The copyright bargain places the burden on the publishers to convince the readers to cede certain freedoms. The concept of balance reverses this burden, practically speaking, because there is generally no doubt that publishers will benefit from additional privilege. Unless harm to the readers can be proved, sufficient to "outweigh" this benefit, we are led to conclude that the publishers are entitled to almost any privilege they request.

Since the idea of "striking a balance" between publishers and readers denies the readers the primacy they are entitled to, we must reject it.

Paper declaring where 14 years was calculated (with assumptions and ignoring some factors) as optimal length of copyright:

https://rufuspollock.org/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf

Omegasquash · Aug 13, 2018

Moosichu said:
It's worth pointing out that there aren't any strong economic or artistic reasons for any NES games not to be in the public domain by now.

I'll make a note to watch the vid later, but respectfully, I disagree with this. They are the creators of it, and they have the right, rightfully so, to distribute it as they see fit and profit accordingly. I do think that copyright is too long as it stands now, however 14 years, in an age where we live longer than ever, is somewhat small. But that's my opinion only, and it doesn't detract from your statement in any way.

Moosichu said:
No company makes risk assements on whether to develop a property based on how much money it could make off resales of the original in 15 years time.

I believe MS bought Minecraft with the intent of it being a "100 year brand."

Source: Business Insider. It is worth noting that the MS exec interviewed at the time said they were thinking about 5 to 10 years down the road.

Moosichu · Aug 13, 2018

Omegasquash said:
I'll make a note to watch the vid later, but respectfully, I disagree with this. They are the creators of it, and they have the right, rightfully so, to distribute it as they see fit and profit accordingly. I do think that copyright is too long as it stands now, however 14 years, in an age where we live longer than ever, is somewhat small. But that's my opinion only, and it doesn't detract from your statement in any way.

I believe MS bought Minecraft with the intent of it being a "100 year brand."

Source: Business Insider. It is worth noting that the MS exec interviewed at the time said they were thinking about 5 to 10 years down the road.

The idea that we own an exclusive right to copy the stuff we create is a very modern one. It is also worth understanding the context within which copyright laws were created: the goal wasn't to enrich the owners of copyrighted material as much as possible, the goal was to enrich the public domain as much as possible. The argument being that if copyright didn't exist, then no one would have a financial incentive to contribute to the public domain. However, without copyright expiring, then the public domain isn't enriched either, which is a huge loss.

Without the public domain, we lose access to a rich tapestry of culture when creating our own works of art. Disney built its empire on works which had fallen in the public domain, Snow White being a classic example.

The fact that we won't be able to build upon works from our own lifetimes is incredibly sad, in my opinion.

Also, with regards to Minecraft, this wouldn't really affect that, as Minecraft is an ever-evolving title. At best, you would be able to freely distribute the 14 year-old version of it, and that is only if Microsoft decided not to renew it. If Microsoft kept developing Minecraft, then only they would own the most up-to-date version.

Also, only Microsoft would own the Minecraft trademark. So even if you created your own version of Minecraft derived from a 14-year old version of it, you wouldn't be able to sell or market it under the Minecraft brand.

Companies don't operate on a model predicting things that far into the future. If I went to a company saying "this product will turn a profit in 14 years", I wouldn't get anywhere.

However, all my arguments do only work if you agree with the premise that copyright exists to enrich the public domain.

juliamcardinals · Aug 13, 2018

JFC the entitlement of this OP

Deleted member 6573 · Aug 13, 2018

spam musubi · Aug 13, 2018

Yeah, I wish there was a way to legally claim works as abandonware. Maybe by bringing a lawsuit to turn a work public domain under certain criteria (has been abandoned for X years, the creator is defunct, etc), and then if no one successfully defends that case, it goes public domain. And make the defense of it very easy so that people can't troll the system.

Modern copyright law is a broken mess, honestly, and it benefits our corporate overlords and not the people. Bleeding heart defenses of the law use straw man scenarios of tiny creators protecting their work with the law, but in reality it's mostly megacorporations using it to extend their reach.

Deleted member 2279 · Aug 13, 2018

juliamcardinals said:
JFC the entitlement of this OP

JFC the corporate dicksucking of this post

Productive, huh? Really adds to the conversation.

Selphie · Aug 13, 2018

juliamcardinals said:
JFC the entitlement of this OP

I love big corporations! Their rights are more important than the general public's!

Deleted member 5535 · Aug 13, 2018

No, it's fine as it is right now. And it's not like the copyright law changing on US would change in other places, like Japan.

methane47 · Aug 13, 2018

I think users should be able to petition that if a video is not produced or on sale from a publisher for 14 years (or 2 console generations) then it should be legal to distribute the game freely.
If the copyright holder then re-releases the game for same in its original form, then the free distribution should be revoked

So this allows publishers some protections if they want to rerelease games eg. crash bandicoot re-release, NES Virtual Console etc..
While also allowing old games that are no longer on sale to be preserved.

Deleted member 5167 · Aug 13, 2018

Aquamarine said:
"History of United States Copyright Law:

1790:
- One 14-year term, renewable for ONE additional 14-year term if the author was alive at the end of the first term

1831:
- One 28-year term, renewable for ONE additional 14-year term if the author was alive at the end of the first term

1909:
- One 28-year term, renewable for ONE additional 28-year term if the author was alive at the end of the first term

1976:
- Either one 75-year term or the life of the author plus 50 years

1998:
- Either one 95-120 year term or life of the author plus 70 years

And again;
map that to life expectancy.

When your life expectancy is less than 40 years a 28 year copyright would last you a lifetime.

Moosichu said:
It's worth pointing out that there aren't any strong economic or artistic reasons for any NES games not to be in the public domain by now.

The fact that the NES classic literally just outsold the PS4 in the US suggests that yes, there is a pretty fucking strong economic reason that NES games are not in the public domain

ASaiyan · Aug 13, 2018

Imo, the problem with the current law is the protection it offers to passive riders - i.e., granting free protection of a literal century to works by corporations that no longer exist or rightsholders who have long since ceased actively caring for their creations.

If I were to propose a simple (and probably flawed) fix: make copyrights more like trademarks. Grant, say, an indefinitely-renewable 10 year protection to corporate works. That way Disney can hold onto Mickey Mouse (which obviously it should), but undefended IP from defunct companies that have sat untouched for 10 years enter into the public domain. Maybe you could even give the USPTO the power to reject claims to works that are found to have been already "genericized" (a la zipper or aspirin).

There is a way to fix this where everyone wins. There is no reason why active corporations and creators should lose the rights to their works. And there is no reason why an obscure piece of software whose rightsholder may not even exist anymore should be given the presumption of a 100 year copyright. Of course, the hard part is the actual legislation. Hopefully the next time this comes up for debate Congress does something other than just kick the can and give literally everyone an even longer pro bono extension.

Cantaim · Aug 13, 2018

Copyright existing for properties after the author dies will always be ridiculous to me.

LegendofLex · Aug 13, 2018

Moosichu said:
Companies don't operate on a model predicting things that far into the future. If I went to a company saying "this product will turn a profit in 14 years", I wouldn't get anywhere.

It's not that companies plan out individual products based on how well they think they should sell after 14 years.

It's that in a world of digital distribution, streaming services, and reissues of classic books, films, and games, investors now expect content creators to be able to continue make money off their successful works in perpetuity.

Wulfric · Aug 13, 2018

I agree.

We have an entire set of modern mythological characters like Batman, the cast of LotR, and Spider-Man which are never entering the public domain if trademarks and copyright are continuous extended. There's only so many times indie artists and college students can remix Dracula and Alice in Wonderland before it gets passé.

It'll be nearly a century before we can legally offer our own spin on Batman, unless corporations rewrite the rules again.

Briarios · Aug 13, 2018

Selphie said:
I love big corporations! Their rights are more important than the general public's!

What right should the general public have to something they didn't create? The entitlement in that statement is ridiculous. These sorts of complaints always seem to originate with people who want something for free and never from the creators.

Regardless of law, my view is that if you didn't create it, you've got no rights to it.

Moosichu · Aug 13, 2018

methane47 said:
I think users should be able to petition that if a video is not produced or on sale from a publisher for 14 years (or 2 console generations) then it should be legal to distribute the game freely.
If the copyright holder then re-releases the game for same in its original form, then the free distribution should be revoked

So this allows publishers some protections if they want to rerelease games eg. crash bandicoot re-release, NES Virtual Console etc..
While also allowing old games that are no longer on sale to be preserved.

Why should companies be able to exclusively resell their old games though. How does that benefit society?

Deleted member 2279 · Aug 13, 2018

Dr Wily said:
And again;
map that to life expectancy.

When your life expectancy is less than 40 years a 28 year copyright would last you a lifetime.

Just a reminder that life expectancy is skewed by infant mortality rates. Adults in the 1800s could expect to live only slightly shorter lives than we do.

brambles13 · Aug 13, 2018

I'm just waiting for the influx of Elvis music in a few decades. Seriously though the only games that are old enough that I think should be public domain are games that are so old that most people wouldn't care anyway (Atari era stuff).

Moosichu · Aug 13, 2018

LegendofLex said:
It's not that companies plan out individual products based on how well they think they should sell after 14 years.

It's that in a world of digital distribution, streaming services, and reissues of classic books, films, and games, investors now expect content creators to be able to continue make money off their successful works in perpetuity.

Of course businesses now exist that make bank off old works, but it has hardly led to any innovation.

I would argue that one of the strongest arguments for copyright laws is how they encourage innovation. But long terms actually start to hinder that.

If companies were required to develop their properties, that would be a much better thing IMO.

Moosichu · Aug 13, 2018

Dr Wily said:
And again;
map that to life expectancy.

When your life expectancy is less than 40 years a 28 year copyright would last you a lifetime.

The fact that the NES classic literally just outsold the PS4 in the US suggests that yes, there is a pretty fucking strong economic reason that NES games are not in the public domain

I forgot we live 190 years now.

I'm talking about macroeconomics (how society benefits), not microeconomics (how an invidiual company may benefit).

And I doubt only having 28 years of copyright would have prevented Nintendo from creating the NES.

Squirrel Killer · Aug 13, 2018

Copyright is a completely artificial right that was intended to balance the protection of creators with the exclusive monopoly to distribute their work against society's desire to encourage new works by limiting the term of protection. Any term that starts with "life of the creator plus..." is antithetical to the original purpose of copyright. However, that cat is well and truly out of the bag now.

While I would prefer to see 14/28 year terms with a single, recorded extension, I know the best I can hope for is to prevent any further extension. I do wonder if there ever could be an orphan works exception carved out, say if the work was unavailable to the public for a period of 28 years (keying off the old copyright term,) then the work would lose copyright protection, however IIRC the last time something like that was proposed, Big Copyright(TM) astroturfed the fuck out of it.

Unknownlight · Aug 13, 2018

ASaiyan said:
If I were to propose a simple (and probably flawed) fix: make copyrights more like trademarks. Grant, say, an indefinitely-renewable 10 year protection to corporate works. That way Disney can hold onto Mickey Mouse (which obviously it should), but undefended IP from defunct companies that have sat untouched for 10 years enter into the public domain. Maybe you could even give the USPTO the power to reject claims to works that are found to have been already "genericized" (a la zipper or aspirin).

I've thought about this before, and I agree. As long as the owner of a work is still actively using it, I don't think it should end up in the public domain. Most works aren't being actively used though, and those should all enter public domain after some amount of time has passed.

Wulfric · Aug 13, 2018

Briarios said:
What right should the general public have to something they didn't create? The entitlement in that statement is ridiculous. These sorts of complaints always seem to originate with people who want something for free and never from the creators.

Regardless of law, my view is that if you didn't create it, you've got no rights to it.

That's funny, I can read Shakespeare and Dracula for free right now. I didn't make it, but I can remix it however I want. Record my own radio drama. Turn it into a comic book. Or cartoon.

These are the things we are already in danger of losing when it comes to early 20th century work. I'm concerned that the Lord of the Rings will never reach this status thanks to the the filthy rich Tolkien estate and New Line Cinema.

gozu · Aug 13, 2018

This is all so Disney's profits remain untouched. other corps hop on the bandwagon, and who is there to speak for the rest of the citizens? Who's there to speak up for public domain?

Apparently, nobody with deep enough pockets, because politicians of both camps are happy to let this destruction of our cultural heritage continue.

Niosai · Aug 13, 2018

I believe that after 15-20 years, derivative works should be allowed for intellectual property and that copyright owners should not be allowed to threaten the creator of the aforementioned derivative work. I think that if someone wants to make their dream Chrono Trigger sequel, they should be able to with no recourse. However, I also believe that the fan creation shouldn't be able to be advertised as official, or be sold.

MattWilsonCSS · Aug 13, 2018

To add to this discussion, there is going to be a push to extend copyright length this coming winter, as works are going to be entering the public domain in January for the first time in years. Disney will likely have lobbyists at the forefront even though their work is not on the list.

Lifetime+125 years is not out of the question.

Moosichu · Aug 13, 2018

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en.html

Although the author is very passionate about these issues, it's worth giving this article a read if you want to hear some of the arguments for shortening copyright.

Giever · Aug 13, 2018

It should just be 14 years. As it is now it's ridiculous and stifling.

Squirrel Killer · Aug 13, 2018

Briarios said:
What right should the general public have to something they didn't create? The entitlement in that statement is ridiculous. These sorts of complaints always seem to originate with people who want something for free and never from the creators.

Regardless of law, my view is that if you didn't create it, you've got no rights to it.

What right does a creator have to limit the creations of everybody who is not them?

You're thinking of this from the creator's perspective, think about it from the larger societal viewpoint. What value does society get from giving an individual an artificial monopoly on a particular expression of an idea? I think there is a very real value in creating that monopoly to encourage the creation of that expression, but we're seeing that "individuals" use that monopoly to prevent other creators making derivative works and hampering preservation efforts.

LegendofLex · Aug 13, 2018

Moosichu said:
Of course businesses now exist that make bank off old works, but it has hardly led to any innovation.

I would argue that one of the strongest arguments for copyright laws is how they encourage innovation. But long terms actually start to hinder that.

If companies were required to develop their properties, that would be a much better thing IMO.

As someone who used to write freelance for a living and would love to write more fiction, from my perspective the best argument for copyright laws is that they encourage authorship of any kind, innovative or otherwise. Ensuring that authors have a right to be compensated for their work (when they are not being paid a wage simply for working) has societal benefit just like other forms of worker protection. Not every created thing has to be a public good simply because it exists.

The real problem is that corporations are treated the same as any other rights holder, that the existence of estates has dragged out copyright duration way longer than it ever needed to be, and that copyright law was never written with virtually free digital distribution or the existence of perpetual media franchises in mind.

oni-link · Aug 13, 2018

Yeah it's too long, and it will be forever extended

Zero-ELEC · Aug 13, 2018

100% agree OP

Tempy · Aug 13, 2018

Wulfric said:
That's funny, I can read Shakespeare and Dracula for free right now. I didn't make it, but I can remix it however I want. Record my own radio drama. Turn it into a comic book. Or cartoon.

These are the things we are already in danger of losing when it comes to early 20th century work. I'm concerned that the Lord of the Rings will never reach this status thanks to the the filthy rich Tolkien estate and New Line Cinema.

It's especially funny since it's Disney who has been remixing public domain for commercial use. That said, it's still possible for any individual or company to remix old fairy tales like Snow White and Cinderella (which they still do) - you just can't use any Disney-made art/music/original characters.

Amibguous Cad · Aug 13, 2018

In doing some reading on this topic, I learned that Jefferson's original draft of the bill of rights included a limitation on the duration of copyright. If only he'd stuck with it!

SweetVermouth · Aug 13, 2018

Copyright should last as long as the person/company is still alive/in business. If I make an album and sell it online, I want to make money off of that for the rest of my life.

orochi91 · Aug 13, 2018

SweetVermouth said:
Copyright should last as long as the person/company is still alive/in business. If I make an album and sell it online, I want to make money off of that for the rest of my life.

+1

potatohead · Aug 13, 2018

Aquamarine said:
Reposting my content from the other thread:

"History of United States Copyright Law:

1790:
- One 14-year term, renewable for ONE additional 14-year term if the author was alive at the end of the first term

1831:
- One 28-year term, renewable for ONE additional 14-year term if the author was alive at the end of the first term

1909:
- One 28-year term, renewable for ONE additional 28-year term if the author was alive at the end of the first term

1976:
- Either one 75-year term or the life of the author plus 50 years

1998:
- Either one 95-120 year term or life of the author plus 70 years

For the vast majority of American history, copyright was only supposed to be in effect for a max of up to 28 years or 56 years IF they were still around.

The fact that books from the 1950's are STILL copyrighted is absolutely absurd.

Realistically, games published in 1990 where (a) the developer is no more, and (b) the publisher is no more and (c) the game isn't being reproduced for sale....they should all be free to download and use in the public domain."

Agree with this assessment

LegendofLex said:
Ensuring that authors have a right to be compensated for their work (when they are not being paid a wage simply for working) has societal benefit just like other forms of worker protection. Not every created thing has to be a public good simply because it exists.

The real problem is that corporations are treated the same as any other rights holder, that the existence of estates has dragged out copyright duration way longer than it ever needed to be, and that copyright law was never written with virtually free digital distribution or the existence of perpetual media franchises in mind.

Agree with this as well

mael · Aug 13, 2018

It's not really a gaming side issue, most copyrighted works still have the authors alive and kicking (let alone IP holders) so it's not like they can fall into public domain anytime soon.
The fact that literal millions of people are willing to pay Nintendo for the privilege of playing their back catalog shows that there's an economic incentive for IP holders to protect their stuffs.
We're never going to go anywhere as long as Disney keep making sure that everyone everywhere extends copyright until they close their doors...so again I don't really see as a gaming side thing.

-shadow- · Aug 13, 2018

The irony of Disney (ab)using the public domain to get where they are now, and doing absolutely everything they can to keep Steamboat Willie from entering it will never stop to amuse me. But it's weird how copyright works these days, and I doubt we'll see anything change, especially with the amount of money Disney is making these days and another extension being required in... I think it's five years?

NoPiece · Aug 13, 2018

Giever said:
It should just be 14 years. As it is now it's ridiculous and stifling.

I'm for a short copyright as well and think it would be largely positive. But there are downsides. Big companies like Disney that are abusing long copyright terms, will find a way to abuse short copyright terms as well. They would be able to look at the best movies, games, music, books, comics of 14+ years ago, and reissue them, remake them, make other media out of them with no compensation to the author/creator.

Velocity:Design:Comfort · Aug 13, 2018

ASaiyan said:
Imo, the problem with the current law is the protection it offers to passive riders - i.e., granting free protection of a literal century to works by corporations that no longer exist or rightsholders who have long since ceased actively caring for their creations.

If I were to propose a simple (and probably flawed) fix: make copyrights more like trademarks. Grant, say, an indefinitely-renewable 10 year protection to corporate works. That way Disney can hold onto Mickey Mouse (which obviously it should), but undefended IP from defunct companies that have sat untouched for 10 years enter into the public domain. Maybe you could even give the USPTO the power to reject claims to works that are found to have been already "genericized" (a la zipper or aspirin).

There is a way to fix this where everyone wins. There is no reason why active corporations and creators should lose the rights to their works. And there is no reason why an obscure piece of software whose rightsholder may not even exist anymore should be given the presumption of a 100 year copyright. Of course, the hard part is the actual legislation. Hopefully the next time this comes up for debate Congress does something other than just kick the can and give literally everyone an even longer pro bono extension.

Best post but its going to be overlooked because people are gonna bicker about "corporate shilling" or "preservation" as if people who believe in copyrights are doing it to defend corporations (I am in the process of developing and copyrighting IP and I am not a big corporation, I think that the 3 people who made Hollow Knight should have the rights to use Hollow Knight, and Toby Fox should be able to pay his rent and keep his lights on based on his works) or that preservation in most cases just means people sharing large rom lists.

Shy · Aug 13, 2018

Copyright should last for the life of the author. And when they pass, the work should go into public domain.

juliamcardinals said:
JFC the entitlement of this OP

Corporations are people, my friend.

MattWilsonCSS · Aug 13, 2018

SweetVermouth said:
Copyright should last as long as the person/company is still alive/in business. If I make an album and sell it online, I want to make money off of that for the rest of my life.

As a copyright holder, I'd be fine with the copyright ending after 14 years. I can always create something new. I would feel pretty darn guilty as a creator if I only made one thing and hugged it to my grave. I'm always coming up with new ideas.

I release my cartoons under the Creative Commons Attribution license which means if people want to, they can make their own episodes, illustrations, fanfics, whatever. And all they have to do is kick a link back. I won't pretend that I am some genius that can only do what I came up with, I know there are others that can do it better, so how selfish would I be for preventing that? Yeah someone could make a knockoff but it wouldn't be my interpretation.

I feel that if you want to be able to participate in society, you have to be willing to give back to it. What cultural heritage will we leave behind if most of it doesn't get preserved due to nonsensical copyright restrictions? I just wish people would see the bigger picture.

Wulfric · Aug 13, 2018

Tempy said:
It's especially funny since it's Disney who has been remixing public domain for commercial use. That said, it's still possible for any individual or company to remix old fairy tales like Snow White and Cinderella (which they still do) - you just can't use any Disney-made art/music/original characters.

Yup. Why is DC the only one that can remix Superman, who has been around since 1938? Dracula was published in 1897, just 41 years prior. I bet dollars to donuts we will not be releasing our own Superman books in 2059.

This is going to be a nightmare when nearly everything post 1900s isn't able to be used by fans.

Velocity:Design:Comfort · Aug 13, 2018

Shy said:
Copyright should last for the life of the author. And when they pass, the work should go into public domain.

Corporations are people, my friend.

Which NES game creators have died?

mael · Aug 13, 2018

NoPiece said:
I'm for a short copyright as well and think it would be largely positive. But there are downsides. Big companies like Disney that are abusing long copyright terms, will find a way to abuse short copyright terms as well. They could now go back and look at the best movies, games, music, books, comics of 14+ years ago, and reissue them, remake them, make other media out of them with no compensation to the author/creator.

It's already what happens with patents.
Banking in the US just decided that now was the time for chips in credit cards because they were too cheap to pay licensing fees.
With short copyright length, meet new Disney that is now free to use any popular children book for an adaptation and just has to wait a short while....sometimes barely long enough for an adaptation to be made.
Using copyrights as a cudgel against profiteering corporation is a losing proposition as they'll always find ways to abuse the law anyway.

Shy · Aug 13, 2018

Velocity:Design:Comfort said:
Which NES game creators have died?

a few. But i still think should rom sites should exist. So calm down.

Trisc · Aug 13, 2018

Melancholy Elephants remains a pretty great (and topical) short story about how perpetual copyright law in the future would paralyze humanity's progress.

Shoreu · Aug 13, 2018

Cantaim said:
Copyright existing for properties after the author dies will always be ridiculous to me.

If i want my children to have exclusive rights to something i don't see the issue

Copyright is absurdly (way way) too long

User requested account closure

User-requested account closure

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

User-requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

tag reference no one gets

"This guy are sick" says The Wise Ones

One Winged Slayer