←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
djoldman ◴[] No.43577414[source]
I don't condone or endorse breaking any laws.

That said, trademark laws like life of the author + 95 years are absolutely absurd. The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. The reasoning being that if you don't allow people to exclude 3rd party copying, then the primary party will assumedly not receive compensation for their creation and they'll never create.

Even in the case where the above is assumed true, the length of time that a protection should be afforded should be no more than the length of time necessary to ensure that creators create.

There are approximately zero people who decide they'll create something if they're protected for 95 years after their death but won't if it's 94 years. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for 1 year past death.

For that matter, this argument extends to other criminal penalties, but that's a whole other subject.

replies(18): >>43578724 #>>43578771 #>>43578899 #>>43578932 #>>43578976 #>>43579090 #>>43579150 #>>43579222 #>>43579392 #>>43579505 #>>43581686 #>>43583556 #>>43583637 #>>43583944 #>>43584544 #>>43585156 #>>43588217 #>>43653146 #
kazinator ◴[] No.43578899[source]
New rule: you get to keep your belongings for 20 years and that's it. Then they are taken away. Every dollar you made twenty or more years ago, every asset you acquired, gone.

That oughtta be enough to incentivize people to work and build their wealth.

Anything more than that is unnecessary.

replies(5): >>43579064 #>>43579114 #>>43579264 #>>43583164 #>>43594509 #
lazyasciiart ◴[] No.43579064[source]
I think you mean "20 years after you die". That seems like a perfectly rational way to deal with people who want to be buried in their gold and jewels in a pyramid.
replies(1): >>43584915 #
kazinator ◴[] No.43584915{3}[source]
OK, so you can have your dad's piano for 20 years after he dies, after that it's public property.
replies(1): >>43586758 #
1. umbra07 ◴[] No.43586758{4}[source]
Some people would surprisingly agree with that.
replies(2): >>43587697 #>>43590036 #
2. kazinator ◴[] No.43587697[source]
Well, yes; some people would agree with the stronger proposition of you not getting that piano, or not without paying some tax on it.
replies(1): >>43588944 #
3. lazyasciiart ◴[] No.43588944[source]
How on earth do you classify estate taxes as stronger than fixed term ownership?
replies(1): >>43591422 #
4. Ray20 ◴[] No.43590036[source]
Because they didn't have a father?
5. kazinator ◴[] No.43591422{3}[source]
I don't, but, I mean, when someone comes and takes some of your money, then it means you had a fixed term on owning that amount, which just came to an end.

"Stuff taken away" is "stuff taken away", no matter what angle we take.