Copyright abuse

News, discussion and questions about technology and computers, whether broadcast-related or not.

Copyright abuse

Postby PMC » Mon Jun 20, 2016 10:26 am

A queston for the news people... why wasn't this bit broadcast as news.... or are the TPP bandits, keeping it hidden ? ... Id=8380350

This a private members bill to extend copyright to 70 years after the author's death.

I wrote material in the 1980's and to see that extended for 70 years in copyright is absurd.

Extending it to 70 years destroys the useage and puts a financial penalty on your grand children.

Innovation is being retarded because software holds the same copyright length. Most software is math formulae, and why should it be allowed to last 70 years past the author's death... the technology would be very obsolete. I think 10 years for copyright is enough on software etc.

The greedy and stupid should not be allowed to destroy the future !

Re: Copyright abuse

Postby jon » Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:05 pm

Standing back a few yards and looking at Intellectual Property (IP) as a whole, including Patents, Copyright and everything that falls in between the cracks, I would have a hard time justifying a specific number of years of protection that would cover everything.

The situation is very different if we are talking about a medical treatment that saves millions of lives annually versus Entertainment. For example, I wouldn't grumble if the Strauss family collected a few cents off every download or CD of one of their waltzes, but I would if Andrew Fleming's family got $1 from every dosage of Penicillin sold from 1928 until today.
User avatar
Advanced Member
Posts: 9206
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:15 am
Location: Edmonton

Re: Copyright abuse

Postby PMC » Mon Jun 20, 2016 2:26 pm

Let me apply some logic.

If they plan on extending it to 70 years, then why don't they do it for a thousand years ?

What is the difference ? They make laws that lack logic, and the sheep are kept ignorant.

Re: Copyright abuse

Postby PMC » Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:18 pm

This case may have some appeal to relate to here. ... otections/

There is nothing to stop a website from offering the advertised `free download' of the movie, and then going after the downloader, for a fee. The download is free, and not the movie etc.

I don't understand why this gets heard by the court, when it seems to be done in contradiction of the original intent.

Return to Computer & Technology News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest