USA’s bizarre, evidence-free, century-plus terms
Uhm, the profits are real.
Adding sarcasm tags to that is going to take longer than officials take redacting FBI documents.
1 Like
Hi
An updated fact sheet states that it isn’t retrospective http://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/assets/docs/TPP_factsheet_Intellectual-Property.PDF
“The extension applies to works that are still within their current 50 year term of protection, but not those that have already fallen into the public domain.”
That’s what I figured, based on how the original briefing notes talked about the net cost.
1 Like
Any extension of existing copyright is a retrospective application of the law. If works were copyrighted with a 50 year term of protection, and now, 49 years later, the term becomes longer, that is applying the law to something that happened in the past. Extending the term of copyright does not increase the incentive to create existing works.
1 Like
Not to mention the fact that letting copyright terms go past the lifetime of the author (honestly, just the author’s lifespan is overkill) doesn’t serve the supposed purpose of copyright, promoting creative works by making sure you can get money from them for a certain amount of time.
We could promise, say, Ian Fleming all the extra money and copyrights we want, he’s not writing any new stories.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
