• Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Drugs aren’t protected by copyright. They’re protected by patents.

    In either case that would be an extreme move and I would not support getting rid of patents or copyright as they’re genuinely useful concepts.

    Copyright in particular doesn’t just protect the money hungry. Lemmy, Linux, and many other open source projects are protected from those who would prefer to use their source code to make a closed source proprietary application and contribute nothing back.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Copyright needs to go back to 30 years. You have 30 years on a patent to make money off it. If you haven’t already made your money back, and a handsome profit in that time, you should have hired a business manager year 2.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Patents are either 14 or 20 years, depending on type. Copyright is absurdly long, but copyright also doesn’t apply to drugs, inventions, recipes, game rules, mathematical formulae - mostly just creative works.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, 14 to 20 years on patents seems reasonable. I would still set copyright back to 30 years, since as you pointed out, it’s really only affecting the public domain.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d be okay with that, but acting like copyright doesn’t exist for a reason or ever do any good… Isn’t helping actually lead to a solution :)

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In a world where you can’t protect your IP, how do you have close sourced?

      Military tech is the bigger issue

      • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        You keep the source code, methods of operation or manufacturing methods private. Companies can already do this. Patents force companies to make their inventions public information (you can access the patent), in exchange for a limited exclusive right to use this technology.

        For no trivial things patent legislation is a great benefit. Everyone can access the patent knowledge. For trivial iterative things patents only benefit the patentee who gets the exclusive rights.

        Copyright means anything you produce that is easily to copy, you have legal control over how it’s copied and the revenue it may generate. This is for things like art work, books, news stories, code etc. Things that can be copy and pasted or printed.

        Copyright is granted when you create the content. There’s no application. It ensures someone can make money from the copy they produce. Less people would write books, if Amazon could print and sell copies without paying the author.

        Military tech would be private. Even with our current IP protection system. A hostile power doesn’t care about infringing IP, there’s very little consequence for do this. If you patent military technology, then that info would be public.