Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1549509" data-attributes="member: 10201">Can't remember if it was this thread or another where i mentioned it, but i still think that, even if we didn't shorten the term of copyright, limiting copyright to actual people would improve the situation vastly. Immortal beings simply shouldn't be allowed to have copyrights limited by length of life. And, IMHO, corporations shouldn't have copyrights, period. Let the actual person who created it own it and license it to the corp.hmmm... interesting idea. But would we really be in a better situation if corporate behemoths can maintain copyrights indefinitely, while the individual author can only afford something for a few years? It seems to me that the damage long-term copyrights are doing is being done by large corporations, not small-time authors. Unless the cost increased to values that'd actually make a megacorp think about the value of IP, i don't think it'd improve the situation. And i mean things like, Disney should be paying $1M+/yr, each, for old copyrights, because it'd take costs of at least that magnitude to make them consider letting a copyright lapse. And the only people who, arguably, actually need long-term copyrights--poor, struggling individual artists--would actually be worse off.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1549509, member: 10201"] Can't remember if it was this thread or another where i mentioned it, but i still think that, even if we didn't shorten the term of copyright, limiting copyright to actual people would improve the situation vastly. Immortal beings simply shouldn't be allowed to have copyrights limited by length of life. And, IMHO, corporations shouldn't have copyrights, period. Let the actual person who created it own it and license it to the corp. hmmm... interesting idea. But would we really be in a better situation if corporate behemoths can maintain copyrights indefinitely, while the individual author can only afford something for a few years? It seems to me that the damage long-term copyrights are doing is being done by large corporations, not small-time authors. Unless the cost increased to values that'd actually make a megacorp think about the value of IP, i don't think it'd improve the situation. And i mean things like, Disney should be paying $1M+/yr, each, for old copyrights, because it'd take costs of at least that magnitude to make them consider letting a copyright lapse. And the only people who, arguably, actually need long-term copyrights--poor, struggling individual artists--would actually be worse off. [/QUOTE]

Verification