• psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Well in theory the idea is that it encourages people to create more by making doing so more lucrative. May have even made some sense back in the era before digitization.

      • psychothumbs@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah even if you are pro-copyright as a way to encourage artistic creation there is no justification for how insanely long works stay under copyright. Or for banning free filesharing of copyrighted works.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          I haven’t ment anyone who supports a post life of the author copyright protection yet. IMO ~20-30 years seems solid. Enough time to express your ideas and elaborate on them, but short enough where authors will be driven to make more than one IP. That’s also more inline with what it used to be.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Right, copyright was meant to give a profit incentive to creators, but the effectively infinite copyright we have now mainly gives profit incentive to large companies who can horde creative works, like Paramount+ in the above case.

          It’s breaking the original compact where we give temporary exclusivity at the reward of more creation. Now it’s effectively permanent exclusivity, with creativity locked up by which obese monster can sit on the biggest hoard of treasure

      • seaQueue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        But if copyright didn’t generate profit for 3-4 generations how will my grandchildren buy yachts?!

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know about theory, more of the retrocon. If it was really there to encourage innovation we would have ironclad caselaw that prevented any artist from not getting properly paid. I take your meaning however.