You seem very convinced, considering the downvotes of discussion.

So… out of date stats about advertising?

If that were true, removing copyright entirely would benefit society.

Just because it’s been corrupted doesn’t mean the intent and purpose isn’t still there.

It’s absurd that we essentially agree on what needs to happen, but you’re stuck on the idea copyright currently has no benefit to anyone but big business.

Seems like a strange application of stats when, as you say, the regulated safety features - the important ones - need not come into a decision-making process and advertising them would be a waste of time.

Bahaha, what kind of a bizarre statement is that?

Was he trying to imply the government only uses spreadsheets and nosql DBs?

Or did he think it was necessary to point out that your average government employee isn’t writing their own SQL to grab data they need?

Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.

I’m not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.

Copyright IS about protecting creators; we’re just still letting corporations run the show.

So you believe there is no protection for creators at all and removing copyright will help them?

And how do you think that’s going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?

The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.

Just because corporations abuse it doesn’t mean we throw it out.

It shouldn’t be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.

Or maybe 5 years unless it’s an individual.

I agree that copyright is far too long, but at 5 years there’s hardly incentive to produce. You could write a novel and have it only starting to get popular after 5 years.