Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Here's a history of copyright law:

    - Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright 
      with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
    - Copyright Act of 1831 - extended the term to 
      28 years with 14-year renewal
    - Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years 
      with 28-year renewal
    - Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 
      75 years or life of author plus 50 years 
    - Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 
      removed the requirement for renewal
    - Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 
      restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
    - Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 extended terms 
      to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
    - Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 
      criminalized some cases of copyright infringement
So let's get this straight, from 14 years the copyright period was extended to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years. And there's reason to believe that as long as Disney (and the like) exists, the concept of public domain is obsolete.

So you can talk about right versus wrong, good versus evil and so on, but clearly something stinks about this picture, which is why I don't blame "pirates" for justifying their acts, as their acts are justified.

And, how fucked up is it that restaurants are afraid of singing "Happy Birthday to You"? Are those singing it thieves?



Again, not really saying anything about the "right" or "wrong" aspects, but continually using the word "stealing" in the debate, then debunking it by comparing it to a car, is, at best, a strawman argument. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a better/easier one word description people can use (for soundbiteness) that adequately gets the point across that the major industries are trying to get across.


The point that the major industries are trying to get across is that copyright infringement is just like stealing. They're saying so quite explicitly whenever I go to the movie theater or rent a DVD.

But copyright infringement is not stealing. You could make an argument about it if the period was still 14 years (i.e. the author has only 14 years to collect revenue from it, so if you want it either pay up or wait 14 years, which is doable). But that's not the case.


How does the length of which the copyright is applicable affect whether copyright infringement is stealing?


Because copyright is not the same as stealing a physical item, so if you want to discuss the morality of it, then length does play a role, as it should since all works should enter public domain at some point, therefore ALL discussions about copyright should address the ever-extending length.

Also, discussing the morality of copyright infringement is also important, as copyright infringement does not rob the owner of the item itself. It only duplicates it.


Because a copyrighted work is not actual property, even if they call it "intellectual property" today, but that's mostly a misnomer. A copyrighted work was supposed to return to the public domain and benefit the whole society, not just the creator, by using it and improving it.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: