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?

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    0·
    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