> is it ok to take those 30 because they ain't 3 million?
I don't think this is a fair stating of what would be happening.
We aren't _taking_ anything from them. We are no longer _granting_ them exclusive control of the work.
But copyright isn't the default state of existence. It's an agreement between author's and society. The _purpose_ of the agreement is to encourage new works entering the public domain.
The current copyright term is fundamentally broken. It's _far_ longer than it needs to be to encourage the creation of new works.
Answer me this: would be the person who developed their indie game 30 years ago not have developed it because they knew that it would no longer be producing $30/month 30 years hence? I sincerely doubt it.
The term should be _just_ long enough to encourage the creation of new works *and not longer*.
Further, the author could...release a sequel to the game, which might make $30/month for another 30 years. Perhaps this might also encourage the creation of new works
> they developed 30 years ago
Interestingly, the original copyright law written by the founders was 14 years, with an optional 14 year extension. So the founding father's response would've been: "Yes! Of course! They already had 28 years to profit off their work! It's time for the public to get to enjoy this...indie game? What's an indie game?"
I don't think this is a fair stating of what would be happening.
We aren't _taking_ anything from them. We are no longer _granting_ them exclusive control of the work.
But copyright isn't the default state of existence. It's an agreement between author's and society. The _purpose_ of the agreement is to encourage new works entering the public domain.
The current copyright term is fundamentally broken. It's _far_ longer than it needs to be to encourage the creation of new works.
Answer me this: would be the person who developed their indie game 30 years ago not have developed it because they knew that it would no longer be producing $30/month 30 years hence? I sincerely doubt it.
The term should be _just_ long enough to encourage the creation of new works *and not longer*.
Further, the author could...release a sequel to the game, which might make $30/month for another 30 years. Perhaps this might also encourage the creation of new works
> they developed 30 years ago
Interestingly, the original copyright law written by the founders was 14 years, with an optional 14 year extension. So the founding father's response would've been: "Yes! Of course! They already had 28 years to profit off their work! It's time for the public to get to enjoy this...indie game? What's an indie game?"