[ptero]

> Copyright should only have a term of life (with a minimum duration of 50 years in case the artist dies at 20-30) and that's all.

There are, to me, two broad classes of copyright. One is for the "works of art", that is for things that people can enjoy (e.g., music). I suspect whatever choice we make the society would not be affected too much. I think your lifetime / 50 years is a bit too generous, but whatever.

IMO way more important is finding the right balance for the technology / know how. That is something that people want to replicate to learn, produce or improve things. The original idea of copyright makes sense, but with modern communication and prototyping speed, 5 years of exclusive use is the max we should give.

I think the society should focus on the technology part first; sadly, most of the discussion is about the royalties to noise generators :).

[hectorr1]

I don't think that the distinction between art and technology stands up to scrutiny. Both are iterative creative processes, and we want to empower future generations of both artists and technologists to build their ideas in a way that advances the current stack. Allowing art to be balkanized with excessive copyright hurts cultural development. And we depend on culture to shape everything, including our current environment that fosters technical innovation.

[ptero]

I am not arguing for balkanizing art. I think it might deserve more generous copyright terms because it can take longer to get appreciated and generate revenue for the author. But I do not feel strongly about it either way.

[JFFalcon]

I believe that copyright only refers to creative works. Technology would be covered by patents. See also trademarks as the third kind of intellectual property.