I don't unterstand why copyright would last longer than the lifetime of the authors who were part of the creative process. It doesn't make sense that it can be transferred like it is

[–] raman_klogius@ani.social 30 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Because Disney lobbied for the time to be raised again and again

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I know why it is the case but it doesn't make sense from a logical perspective that isn't capitalistically oriented

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

Well ... yeah? Of course a capitalist decision only makes sense under capitalism.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Hell, let's compromise and say 20 years after the author's death. In case they have a small child at the time of death and said child's other parent isn't capable of the kid's upkeep, a little extra would help.

But what is it right now? 70 years? Literally no excuse for that.

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

At some point it just becomes a tool for making money off of other people's works

[–] BladeFederation@piefed.social 1 points 17 minutes ago

And look where it has left us: bereft of creativity.

[–] exaybachae@startrek.website 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Why do they last more than a year?

Why do they exist at all?

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 20 points 13 hours ago

I understand them lasting for a certain time so the authors can get a compensation for what they have worked for. Of course people are allowed to quote things and use the content in a transformative way like in the German urheberrechts laws.

Without royalties or copyright it's difficult to earn enough money for living as an artist. If there was proper support and compensation for artists there would be no reason for copyright law.