[qwytw]

For corporations sure. For individual authors that's certainly not fair. Especially since it makes it easier for corporations to exploit their work without paying them anything.

> If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for copyrights

Because there are fundamentally differ concepts and serve different purposes?

[monknomo]

I don't think they are very different in concept, other than one covers physical goods (and also procedures to make physical goods), and the other covers writings.

The purposes of both are: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Like, this is a made up regime with a specific intent. The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history. I think we could quite reasonably choose a different period of time (and in fact, have done so several times over the past few hundred years) and still promote progress.

I think it's very reasonable to say that one good idea should not be enough to let you coast your whole life, you should be prodded to cough up 3 good ideas. Further, it reduces corporate power at the other end by allowing individuals to play in coroporate properties after a relatively short time. You could be futzing around with, idk, a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime.

[qwytw]

It would also make it much easier for corporations to exploit authors.

They would generally make most of their money early (in the couple of years following when the content is released). Individual authors would be much more affected, it might take years for your book to become popular. Also imagine if a studio decides to make a movie or tv show just right after your copyright expires, they wouldn't pay the author anything and just have higher profit margins.

> The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history

Patented inventions and technologies have some sort of direct practical value. Society does not really benefit much if anyone is allowed to created derived works based on any copyrighted content without compensating the author.

> a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime.

I don't think cars are copyrighted unless you want to make an exact copy of it you shouldn't run into any issues.

[account42]

> Patented inventions and technologies have some sort of direct practical value. Society does not really benefit much if anyone is allowed to created derived works based on any copyrighted content without compensating the author.

Most of copyrighted works are derived fro earlier works in some form, often ones that are older than copyright. If derived works provide no value then most copyright doesn't provide any value.

[monknomo]

If it is true that society does not benefit from creating derived works, then why is open source so useful?

[dspillett]

> For individual authors that's certainly not fair.

How about lifetime of the author? Or "lifetime or 25 years whichever is longer" so those writing in their later years (or dying young) can pass on the time they didn't get chance to fully use.

> Especially since it makes it easier for corporations to exploit their work without paying them anything.

That ship has sailed. We've seems "big corp" commit mass piracy and get the lightest slap on the wrist, I doubt they'll get less brazen going forwards.