I believe that the protection copyright provides is proportionate to how much you can spend on lawyers. So, no protection for the smallest creators, and little protection for smaller creators against larger corporations.
I support extreme copyright reform, though I doubt it should be completely removed.
No, it isn’t. The intent WAS to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.
If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.
Just because it’s been corrupted doesn’t mean the intent and purpose isn’t still there.
It’s absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you’re stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.
I believe that the protection copyright provides is proportionate to how much you can spend on lawyers. So, no protection for the smallest creators, and little protection for smaller creators against larger corporations.
I support extreme copyright reform, though I doubt it should be completely removed.
Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.
I’m not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.
Copyright IS about protecting creators; we’re just still letting corporations run the show.
No, it isn’t. The intent WAS to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. The reality IS that it harms society, by benefiting only the already powerful.
If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.
Just because it’s been corrupted doesn’t mean the intent and purpose isn’t still there.
It’s absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you’re stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.
I could be convinced of that.
I think extreme reform would be of more benefit. Copyright as-is is an active harm.
You seem very convinced, considering the downvotes of discussion.