Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pxpx
Most trade agreements have investor/state dispute clauses.
What's wrong with extending copywright?
LOL @ disregarding GDP as a valid measure of benefits.
|
Yes, most agreements have ISD, but the ones here are unusually heavily in favour of the corporations.
Extending copyright: This has been extended in three ways -
Lowering the bar for what constitutes altering the work (thus resetting the start date of the copyright) - Arguably this part is fine.
Broadening scope of what is in copyright - what is a copyright violation vs what is fair use. The fair use provisions are being chipped away at, and that's not OK as it restricts progress in the arts, literature and science. EG the provision allowing photos of a sculpture or other object being a violation of copyright, that's really WTF.
Changing from 30 years after death of creator to 70 years after death of creator. Why this is bad requires some context. When copyright came about, it was 25 years from when the creation of the work - the idea being that it gives the creator enough time to benefit from their labours (and 25 years is a good amount of time!) before the copyright expires, reverting to the public domain, for the public benefit. Then corporations started purchasing copyright rights - and things just keep getting extended. Extending past the life of the creator has no social benefit, only benefitting the corporations that hold the copyright, usually not even contributing to the estate of the creator.
While it's less immediately critical that music / movies are not going to the public domain, certainly when it comes to scientific research, not having access to research for ~120 years (assuming the paper's author is in 20's to 30's and lives until 70-odd) vs 25 years or even the ~90 years of the current legislation clearly is to the detriment of progress.