undefined

points

by bigstrat20033 hours ago |

[-]

> until the end of the author's life.

which is too long, and also too short - what about authors who wrote finished their book on their deathbed? Then their rights are shorter than someone young - an unfair discrimination.

That's why age should be irrelevant. Copyright is useful, and should be granted. However, current copyright grants last far too long - age plus some years beyond. Not to mention corporations lobbying to increase the length right as some copyrights for some works are about to enter public domain.

Therefore, copyright should be granted for a single period and end - like patents. 20 years seems to be a good middle ground, but i could hear arguments for slightly longer or shorter.

by drdaeman1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Same exact duration for all authors: as long as they’re around and capable of caring. It’s not the same when duration is expressed numerically, sure. But consider: no life is the same in this way (until immortality is discovered), yet all should be valued equally (or so I hope and believe). Timing life makes them unavoidably unequal - and thus differences in lifetime shouldn’t be a criteria to use for comparing rights. That’d be actual age discrimination.

I suggest to rather look at it under the angle whether estates should be able to inherit author’s identity (or some of it), to continue the will.

by modeless3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

How about "We the people", as stated in the Constitution? The Constitution itself defines the purpose of copyright, and it is not the purpose you state.