Asklemmy

43755 readers

1266 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What duration of time do you connect to intellectual property? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 months ago by CraigOhMyEggo@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It's one thing that copyright/IP is such a matter of debate in the creative world, but a whole new layer is added onto that when people say that it only matters for a certain amount of time. You may have read all those articles a few months ago, the same ones telling us about how Mickey Mouse (technically Steamboat Willy) is now up for grabs 95 years after his creation.

There are those who say "as long as it's popular it shouldn't be pirated", those who say "as long as the creator is around", those who don't apply a set frame, etc. I've even seen people say they wouldn't dare redistribute paleolithic paintings because it was their spark on the world. What philosophy of statutes of limitation make the most sense to you when it comes to creative work?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

I think that over time, the term for new patents should shorten.

History is accelerating, and the larger the world is (as in higher population), the shorter patent term can be and still provide the incentive for invention.

I think that people who invent useful things should be rich, but that should be balanced against the world’s need for that invention.

So you get a brief monopoly on the production, and then later on others can produce that same thing without your permission (patent expires).

The patent term should be shorter in the 2100s than it is in the 1700s, because in the 2100s:

There are more people, allowing the inventor to get rich faster by selling to a larger market
The world changes faster