[mathstuf]

One can still want much looser copyright. For example, 14 years by default, pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time (as compensation for stealing from the public domain). At least I'm willing to call extended copyright terms stealing if we're going to call format shifting and other personal use cases stealing.

[josefx]

> pay $$ to extend it, increasing exponentially each time

Doesn't work with DRM protected media. Version 1 will be pulled from circulation shortly before the time runs out, version 2 will be slightly altered and qualify for a brand new 14 year copyright. Buyers of version 1 will not receive any refunds and will be expected to pay the full price for version 2.

[thayne]

Well, there should be laws to protect consumers from DRM, instead of laws to prevent consumers from circumventing DRM for legal uses, like say consuming the content they paid for on the device of their choice.

[exe34]

version 1 is now in the public domain - What's the issue?

[notpushkin]

Apart from having to crack DRM (which has not been a problem so far) I think this should work. Of course, DRM provisions should stop working when a DRM-encumbered media reaches the public domain.

[ninalanyon]

That just privileges the rich. Just return to the original idea of copyright and limit it to 12 years.

[iamacyborg]

> stealing from the public domain

How is it stealing from the public domain if it’s intellectual property you’ve created? Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

[thayne]

I don't believe that ideas/intellectual work should be considered property. I will concede that granting a temporary monopoly through copyright or patents can maybe be a means of incentivizing innovation and creative work, but I'm not convinced it is the only means of doing so, and the longer that monopoly lasts, the more it can have the inverse effect of stifling innovation that builds on existing innovations.

[mathstuf]

At least in the US, copyright is a monopoly on certain rights for a limited time. By locking those rights for an extended time, it is stretching that definition. The time to benefit from your creations is in that time window. That goes for my creations, yours, and everyone else too. Public domain is patient, but I don't think it is worth depriving it of moderately older works with which others can start to use as a foundation to build upon.

[freedomben]

> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

I don't necessarily agree with GP or you, but this isn't a good argument because anyone other than libertarians (i.e. anyone who supports taxation), which in practice is pretty much everyone, does believe that.

[iamacyborg]

No I agree it’s a poor argument when looked at either extreme. I think most folks would likely agree that some taxation is beneficial, albeit not a 100% tax rate, which would be broadly analogous to the argument that copyright shouldn’t exist.

[Dylan16807]

The person you replied to wasn't making the argument that copyright shouldn't exist. Their argument is in line with "some taxation" where it goes into the public domain after a while, and they only (potentially) called extended copyright terms stealing from the public domain.

[exe34]

> Do you also believe I should be entitled to a cut of your paycheck?

don't you benefit from taxes?