SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's election season in the UK, and the Green Party's policy document has been coming under scrutiny recently. In it is a desire to reduce copyright term to 14 years (not life + 14 years, but 14 years from publication).
Unsurprisingly, this has received a bit of a backlash from various parties.
There's no chance the Green Party will form the next government, so this is all academic, but is this a sensible idea? Are people overreacting?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Green Party Proposes 14-year Copyright Term - Artists are not Amused
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 113 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 25 2015, @03:02AM
Value != price. He's referring to people who make the content available for others that has no price.
And I disagree with him. Copyright simply should not exist in any form.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Saturday April 25 2015, @05:33AM
Then you agree with me. I oppose copyright on the grounds of free speech and jurisdiction, among other things. By jurisdiction, I mean this: you can't enforce copyright without a world government. All you have to do is change jurisdictions, copy, and return.
Few people know that the reason copyright is in the constitution at all is because state governments couldn't enforce it. So it was turned over to the federal government to attempt to enforce. Now there is no way to enforce copyright without a world police, which is so opposed to the concept and benefits of a republican government that it shouldn't require further opposition.