Civil Liberties
Related: About this forumIntellectual Property Reform.
I wasn't quite sure where to post this... but a thought occurred to me regarding intellectual property; Bambi.
Bambi was released in 1942, you know, during WW2. The original authors and animators are probably either near end of life or dead. Why is it that this film still cost $15? Why can't I share this work with friends or family?
Normally, works only last the author's lifetime. The constitution says intellectual property will be protected for a "limited" time. Why is the limited time more than a lifetime?
I'm pretty sure the reason is Disney fighting for more restrictive intellectual property rights and continuous expansion of these "rights". They've done so by buying politicians to do so. When will politicians say "enough is enough" and reform intellectual property?
handmade34
(22,923 posts)> life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years (+45 years)
Seems like an insanely long time. We need to reduce this time. I'm willing to bet Disney helped draft that law.
corporate interests write most of the onerous laws
progressoid
(50,746 posts)If I write a successful book or a popular song etc, with this law I can count on it to benefit my children when I die rather than a corporation snatching it up and cashing in on it.
JHB
(37,414 posts)defacto7
(13,610 posts)though I also think those rights are important to a degree. Do you think Sanders would be capable of instigating and accomplishing the changes necessary to correct political payola that affects this and other rights issues. I'm not convinced. Lots of good intentions but the road you know...
gredinger
(86 posts)As part of Bernie's campaign platform, he mentions protecting the "right-to-repair". This is a form of intellectual property.
Honestly, universal single payer healthcare would benefit from some intellectual property reform in regards to pharmaceuticals.
defacto7
(13,610 posts)Hell yeah, reform in regard to pharma is huge. Who can deliver is the question. Warren and Sanders seem the most verbal on this. Not my choices today but with regard to this op they seem prominent.
gredinger
(86 posts)This was the story that convinced me. There were several court cases about jailbreaking iPhones back in the day too which is where I took my original stance of "where if you own it, its yours regardless of software locks".
We're starting to see software locks becoming more and more common. If it starts to become illegal to pick your own locks, we're going down a dangerous path.
defacto7
(13,610 posts)You buy it, you own it, all of it. I spent a lot of time 5 to 20 years ago slipping around ms claims to software and hardware for clients who bought them outright yet were unable to manouver their personal property or hardware due to the finger of ms. In the end I just tried to convince them to wean themselves off of closed source. The ones that did were happier but most were pigeonholed. Times have changed in some ways though and locking owned products is fascist in my opinion.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)it to people, charge to view, etc., without paying some royalties. Not an attorney or expert on patents or copyrights.