100% agree on scientific papers. However, even then I can see misinformation sneaking in through the cracks of language and marketing - through omission or clever wording - they can effectively mislead you even if the content is scientifically accurate.
As for copyright, I see it differently... i have come to the conclusion that the only true property that we hoomans ever possess is our mind and our ideas. And therefore I value ideas and content as being the sovereign property of its creator. And unless we create other incentives (non-monetary) to entice people to share this property, I think this idea of ending copyright so early would infringe on the rights of ownership of the creator. Currently, by law, copyrights end after the author dies +70 years (to benefit his legacy). and I would be willing to grand that we can do away with the inheritance of legacy... but this would also trample on some basic libertarian principles... so the question is, should we tax (or even steal) people's intellectual property for the benefit of society? or should we respect the individual sovereignty of their minds?
Only corporations can afford to defend copyrights.
As an individual, you can't afford to defend your "original idea" even if you're in the right.
This is the exact opposite of the original intent of copyright law.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The reality is that we cannot defend any ideas. The only thing copyright grants to the creator is ownership of the distribution of a particular creation (not idea). Copyright is limited, and if one wants to extend that defense they might need to ask for trademark. However, I'm not sure i understand your position clearly... are you in favor of stronger copyrights or are you in favor of limiting them to 20 years for the sake of benefiting society?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm suggesting that if you write a book or a song or a movie, 20 years is more than enough time for you to make a reasonable profit.
And the copyright or patent should only apply to the individual creator (as originally intended).
Corporations don't need copyrights or patents, because they can simply out-produce or out-distribute their competitors (free-market-economics).
Copyrights and patents were intended to protect the "little guy", they were never intended to be a Weapon of the Fat Cats.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
good stuff, thank you for clarifying. I actually agree with almost all of these ideas. The only one that im not convinced about is the 20-year expiration. I think it is very subjective to say what is enough time, and what is dimmed enough as far as an artist's potential to profit from their creation. I see some pros and cons stemming from this scenario... The pro might be pressure to promote one's own creations faster and more aggressively... the con might be the emotional anguish of an artist if they failed to benefit from their art, but someone later does...
But I do understand your view now, and I think that, as someone who believes in socialized medicine, education, etc. I have to be consistent and accept the idea of more socialized intellectual property (if it benefits society). which it will almost certainly will.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree it seems like a bit of a trade-off, but in-the-end, if individuals can remix or re-purpose ideas without the constant threat of being sued into oblivion, I think the world would be a much better place.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit