Yet more examples of how copyright destroys culture rather than driving it [Updated]
walledculture.org

One of the supposed justifications for the intellectual monopoly called copyright is that it drives creativity and culture. In the last few weeks alone we have had multiple demonstrations of why the opposite is true: copyright destroys culture, and not by accident, but wilfully. For example, the MTVNews.com site, along with its sister site CMT.com, …

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    4 months ago

    Another option is to not allow copying of digital copyrighted works, but do allow resale/gifting and require storefronts to offer something like that. I can do that with physical goods, and that’s most of the reason I’d want to copy a copyrighted work (e.g. to send to a friend).

    I think trademark law is generally fine as-is, but patent and copyright law are atrocious. My proposal:

    • cut copyright to the original 14 year term (or perhaps 10), and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove financial hardship (e.g. small creators who didn’t get traction with their product)
    • cut patents to 7 years, and allow a one-time renewal of 5 years when going to market (so max 12 years if it takes 7 years to bring a product to market); maybe an exception if the product is stuck with regulators
    • don’t require lawsuits to keep trademark, only require filing of a potential violation with the trademark office; you can sue, but that shouldn’t be necessary to “defend” your trademark