How long should copyright last?

>>129240689
How long should you be allowed to own a piece of land?

>>129240689
Creator's death or 40 years, whichever comes first.

>>129240689
Depends on the product. 5 years on digital products, 10 years on everything else would be ok I think. With the inability to copyright anything that was ever part of the commons of course.

>>129241055
False equivalency, by that logic you could extend it to patents, which would give a company like Merck a 10,000 year hold on aspirin or a future HIV vaccine

>>129241549
How is it a false equivalence? You extract resources from land the same way you extract resources from intellectual property such as your medicine example. The only difference is you can exploit resources out of intellectual property indefinitely because that resource is infinite.

Again, how long should you be allowed to own a piece of land?

40 or 50 years.

>>129241789
>How is it a false equivalence?
Ideas are not tangible goods that can be passed down in perpetuity. You can pass land to heirs until or if they decide to liquidate holdings. Ideas are passed on immediately, it is their use that is governed.

>>129240689

50 years.

>>129242226
The technical term you are looking for is "rival". Ideas are not rival goods.

>>129242226
Ideas aren't, but the resources extracted from them are tangible goods.

>>129243608
t. emperor of patent trolls

>>129245736
It pays the bills $$$$ patent attorney master race

Post

>>129240689
Tried making this thread a few months ago.

Copyright should go back to the copyright act of 1909 that set the limit on copyright to 25 years, with one possible extension for another 25 years. It should be updated to cover new ways in which content can be distributed, and allow for the extension of these methods into the future. It should also look to make all distribution rights unify into a single right, such that any "license" is an allowance on all forms of distribution and not just one way.

Simplifying copyright and shortening it will be a great boon to culture and will arrest much of the control (((Hollywood))) has on our society.

>>129247803
i care less about hollywood trash and more about stifling innovation/encouraging patent skeleton companies.

Plus

File: 1490668461357.jpg (1MB, 3120x4208px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3120x4208px

20 years, and then you have to file again yearly to keep it.
That way Disney can keep their stupid fucking mouse and everything else that's of no use to a company/uncertain of who owns it can fall into the Public Domain.

>>129240689
As long as it takes to upload the file.

>>129240689
Authors life plus zero.

File: ancap_bowtie.jpg (31KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1200x630px

Intellectual property is not a legitimate form of property. One is never justified in enforcing any type of intellectual property. Not only that but intellectual property debases and makes a mockery of actual private property law which is the foundation of a functional society.

Those who complain about copyright tend to be unoriginal fucks who want to use someone else's idea for their own benefit

>>129240689
Patents only last for 20 years, and there's been no shortage of great inventions, so I don't see why copyright should last much longer. Originally, copyright lasted for 28 years, and I think that's enough.

>>129253127
Sometimes people are better at improvising than creating.

>>129253127
This is simply an ad hominem and has nothing to do with copyright law

>>129252899

Why would anyone want to spend their time and energy inventing something when any company can just come along and rip the idea from them with no credit or payoff.

Totally destroys incentive.

>>129253127
t. Disney shill that makes loads of money retelling 300 year old fairy tales that are public domain and then lobby for infinite copyright on your stuff

Infinite, but no exclusive reproduction and fixed maximum reward

>>129256623
Disney doesn't own snow white or Aladdin you dumb fuck. They simply own the likeness of those characters made for those movies

>>129254465
You still have first mover advantage in the market. It's up to the inventor to utilize that. As an example look at something like bitcoin. It's publicly known how it works 100% and yet still no other cryptocurrency has been able to compete allowing massive growth.
and that's an extreme example; an inventor need not publish exactly how their invention works. that buys them even more time to profit from it while others are stuck reverse engineering it.

not to mention all the possible business models that could be used to distribute intellectual property. most of our thinking on the matter is limited by or view of ip as private property, which it is not.

>>129257836
I never said they did, by "their stuff" I mean Mickey Mouse and other stuff that they keep pushing to increase the copyright on.

>>129240689
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmILOL55xP0

>>129257850

So some random person comes up with a product to solve a problem. This person goes to a big company to have them make the product for him. The company likes what they see and makes it underneath their own brand while giving the inventor nothing.

A pharmaceutical company spends millions upon millions of dollars and many years to find the perfect molecule to treat a disease. Once the drug hits the market, it is quickly able to be discovered what it is due to elemental analysis combined with chromatographic and resonance analysis. Another company now manufactures the generic form with the first company having very little time to make a name in the market.

How does having no copyright laws address these problems?

>>129260719
If the person didn't get the company to sign some type of agreement then that's clearly their fault. If you give away the information why would you expect someone to pay you for it.

The pharmaceutical company goes back to my comment on business models. Obviously I don't run a pharmaceutical company so my ideas are limited as well but just off the cuff here: They could release the test results of their drug then solicit funds to cover the cost of the research before releasing the drug. This is essentially a "ransom" for the information.

These type of information for ransom models seem like they would be quite effective in many ip based businesses but there is currently little incentive to use them because a there's more money to be made by leaning on the long arm of the law to enforce their illegitimate control over the ip.