I would argue that, like every economic compromise, copyright introduces certain friction. For example, authors cannot easily build on works of other authors; even if you had a brilliant idea about a new Mickey Mouse movie, you would have to obtain licence from Disney for that. That sort of goes against the entire cultural tradition of humanity before copyright; Disney themselves made enormous money on adaptations of folk tales in public domain. Art does not exist in a vacuum and most works are at least inspired by previous works.
Ofc authors and publishers benefit from this friction, that is why copyright exists at all. But it is a legitimate question where precisely that tradeoff should lie.
Already in the 18th century in England, the Law Lords rejected "eternal" copyright as undesirable. 95 years isn't exactly eternity, but it is a lot longer than the original 14+14 format.
Comments
I would argue that, like every economic compromise, copyright introduces certain friction. For example, authors cannot easily build on works of other authors; even if you had a brilliant idea about a new Mickey Mouse movie, you would have to obtain licence from Disney for that. That sort of goes against the entire cultural tradition of humanity before copyright; Disney themselves made enormous money on adaptations of folk tales in public domain. Art does not exist in a vacuum and most works are at least inspired by previous works.
Ofc authors and publishers benefit from this friction, that is why copyright exists at all. But it is a legitimate question where precisely that tradeoff should lie.
Already in the 18th century in England, the Law Lords rejected "eternal" copyright as undesirable. 95 years isn't exactly eternity, but it is a lot longer than the original 14+14 format.