this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
490 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

87806 readers
4217 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

15 years of non transferable copyright encourages creativity.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 5 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Some things (field of medicine/environmentalism) can’t wait 15 years for an effective democratised solution.

The idea that someone would be rewarded for limiting access to such solution sickens me.

Naturally they would deserve global praise possible in the form of a reward for creating the idea that changed the world for the better, but capitalism is designed to not do so.

To often in industry the actual creative inventor gets nothing, while the company they work under gets the patent to exploits the demand.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If employees owned the means of production, this would be a moot point... Just pointing that out for people.

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 2 points 21 hours ago

It would be way less of a problem for sure, but not moot. An individual inventor can still stop other people from using an identical solution simply for being first to file the paperwork.

[–] freedom@lemy.lol 4 points 23 hours ago (2 children)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 2 points 22 hours ago

Most big authors and artists dedicate their lives to their craft because, and this is true, once they finish writing a book or recording a song, they'll get paid for people who buy or stream them. Without copyright, there's zero reason to pay them.

[–] kestrel7_7@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Seems highly arbitrary. I always think about how early airplane tech was almost all developed in Europe because no one in America could work on anything adjacent after the Wright Bros patented their flyer. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

It comes from this paper. Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term

It makes sense that some copyright protection is beneficial to society as it encourages new works.

But I think the important part is to ensure copyright is non transferable. Then large corporations cannot build (and charge for) large libraries.