09-13-2016, 12:26 PM
(09-12-2016, 05:22 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(09-12-2016, 04:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Movies are not the work of individuals the way songs are. Personally I have no problem with extending the copyright on movies indefinitely, or as long as the corporation does not go bankrupt. Disney's income stream from movies as far back as the 1920s allows them to continue producing wonderful movies today.
Such a copyright wouldn't need to apply to scripts or sheet music or possibly even the recordings, just to the overall multimedia result.
Geez, what a load of crap the above is. Pharmaceuticals for example likewise aren't the work of individuals. So, hell, a pox on both houses of Big Pharma and especially fuckshit Mickey Mouse Inc.I can live without Mickey Mouse piss, but some antibiotic may save my life.
So again, blast the copyright limit down to 17 years.
Pharmaceuticals are protected by patent, not copyright; the issues are very different. In particular, patent law prohibits related work even if it is nonderivative. It's relatively safe to extend copyright law because you can always tell your own stories; extending patent law threatens to shut down technological progress.