• Micromot@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I don’t unterstand why copyright would last longer than the lifetime of the authors who were part of the creative process. It doesn’t make sense that it can be transferred like it is

      • Micromot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I know why it is the case but it doesn’t make sense from a logical perspective that isn’t capitalistically oriented

        • frongt@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Well … yeah? Of course a capitalist decision only makes sense under capitalism.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Hell, let’s compromise and say 20 years after the author’s death. In case they have a small child at the time of death and said child’s other parent isn’t capable of the kid’s upkeep, a little extra would help.

      But what is it right now? 70 years? Literally no excuse for that.

      • Micromot@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I understand them lasting for a certain time so the authors can get a compensation for what they have worked for. Of course people are allowed to quote things and use the content in a transformative way like in the German urheberrechts laws.

        Without royalties or copyright it’s difficult to earn enough money for living as an artist. If there was proper support and compensation for artists there would be no reason for copyright law.