I’ll be controversial and say Copyright is fine but should be on a far shorter duration.
5 years is enough time to capitalise on your work as an inventor or artist.
Maybe protect art for sequels so nobody else is allowed to make a sequel. But is allowed to use the work or characters or whatever after the 5 years for original spinoffs.
Exception for medical inventions, this 5 years should only begin at time of fully entering the market. Because research and testing is such a long time period and it is not being capitalised during that time.
This assumes a market economy and assumes you could even achieve any of this, which you can’t in any bourgeois country, so my position is fuck copyright entirely. But you could theoretically make it work in an ideal implementation provided that people actually had the power, but we don’t.
IANAL, but to be pedantic, copyright mainly protects creative expression, not ideas, facts, systems, or methods of operation. So while someone can’t copy your specific way of explaining a concept (the expression), they are generally free to use the underlying idea or information in their own work, as long as they don’t replicate the original phrasing, structure, or other protectable elements.
By contrast, patents protect inventions; new and non-obvious processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. Where copyright arises automatically upon creation of a work, patents require a formal application and examination process. Patents offer stronger exclusivity (preventing others from even independently developing the same invention), but last much shorter (typically 20 years) compared to copyright, which lasts decades longer (often life of the author plus 70 years). In short: copyright covers how something is expressed; patents cover how something works or is invented.
So, you would also need to change the patent system to align with your proposal.
I’ll be controversial and say Copyright is fine but should be on a far shorter duration.
5 years is enough time to capitalise on your work as an inventor or artist.
Maybe protect art for sequels so nobody else is allowed to make a sequel. But is allowed to use the work or characters or whatever after the 5 years for original spinoffs.
Exception for medical inventions, this 5 years should only begin at time of fully entering the market. Because research and testing is such a long time period and it is not being capitalised during that time.
This assumes a market economy and assumes you could even achieve any of this, which you can’t in any bourgeois country, so my position is fuck copyright entirely. But you could theoretically make it work in an ideal implementation provided that people actually had the power, but we don’t.
IANAL, but to be pedantic, copyright mainly protects creative expression, not ideas, facts, systems, or methods of operation. So while someone can’t copy your specific way of explaining a concept (the expression), they are generally free to use the underlying idea or information in their own work, as long as they don’t replicate the original phrasing, structure, or other protectable elements.
By contrast, patents protect inventions; new and non-obvious processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter. Where copyright arises automatically upon creation of a work, patents require a formal application and examination process. Patents offer stronger exclusivity (preventing others from even independently developing the same invention), but last much shorter (typically 20 years) compared to copyright, which lasts decades longer (often life of the author plus 70 years). In short: copyright covers how something is expressed; patents cover how something works or is invented.
So, you would also need to change the patent system to align with your proposal.
Yeah but I included invention since others are talking about it too. Same concepts anyway, protection of ideas, one for art one for physical.