Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Fine, so tax it. This doesn’t amount to a pro-argument that someone else should be able to divert my income stream and my creative work for their own private gain.

View on HN

There’s no counter-argument to make beyond my self-interest in consuming creative works at very low cost and with very few limitations outweighing your self-interest in profiting from your works.

There is a counter argument to make, and that’s not it. If getting free stuff were the primary argument in favor of shorter copyright, our court system would have extended copyrights forever already.

Congress is the one that’s dramatically extended copyright length, not the courts.

Sure, fine. I stand corrected and remain unsatisfied by still not hearing any clear or compelling reasons to shorten copyrights. Congress isn’t extending copyrights on their own, their doing it because they’ve been asked to by businesses like Disney. The length hasn’t been extended “dramatically”, any time recently. No more dramatically than in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...

The only compelling reason is to give broader and cheaper access to past works. If you don’t find that compelling then I don’t know what to tell you. What’s the compelling argument for them to exist as is?

The big extensions came in the mid-70s and late 90s, well within living memory. According to your own link they nearly doubled the average duration and pushed it over 100 years.

Where do you get a doubling of the average copyright term?

> What’s the compelling argument for them to exist as is?

You’re asking why does copyright exist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com