Comment by giancarlostoro

reduces the ownership hunt problem, as well!

They pay taxes every time that they make money off Mickey Mouse, regardless of copyright status.

the important thing is that copyright serves the public good, I do not think it currently does, at least not as well as it could

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.

> Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death

if public company means employee owned (instead of publicly traded or state owned) then im all for it. if the founders family are good managers they can easily convince their workers to let them keep running things.

you dont deserve a job or a fortune just because your parents did a lot of hard work before you were an adult. you got to prove yourself and be better than the rest, thats what capitalism is all about right?

So what? Why should the state grant you a monopoly at all?

The reason is to encourage people to create useful writings and make useful discoveries. But we need to balance this encouragement with the benefit we get by making these writings and discoveries available to everyone. By granting a time-bound monopoly the state rewards creators, and by ensuring this time period is not excessive, spreads the benefit among the populace.

Plus, with a time bound benefit, you have to keep on creating, which is good for everyone under this regime.

These aren't, like, inherent rights, they are contingent

Why not just 30 years? Patents get a flat 20.

Not that I'm arguing for 30 per se, just that I don't see what goals of copyright would be advanced more by adding an "or until death" complication.

I am fine that estate gets to keep rights for whatever period is left. If estate is dissolved ofc rights would also end. So they can't be orphaned. Either someone has them or they are public domain.

Not in every country, and secondly if you're basing it on life of the author then that does't solve corporate copyright unless you tie it to the live of a particular employee.

You could do "life of author or X years, whichever is longer". Or include a period after death.

But you see how the complexities come in.

Either that or if it didn't work, insurance industry would've created a product that makes it work for commissioned works. Nothing happens in isolation here.

So if an 86 year old writes a book they can't copyright it?

This can't work: life expectancy (of humans) can differ more than 30 years around the world, plus there are significant differences between men and women, and corporations - which often own copyright on work for hire - can live in perpetuity.

I would accept that as well, but crank it down to like 62 years since their date of birth, presumably by the time they would retire.