Copyright is a complicated thing and I don't pretend to have all the answers. I'm not suggesting to simply reduce the length of copyright and keep everything else the same. I would like to see copyright on software gone completely. Software has a unique purpose in our lives and should not be treated like other creative works such as music and literature. I believe software development would still be good business without the protection of copyright. Vendors could focus on documentation and support rather than the code itself.
> There are a lot of photographers who's livelihood is based on their library of photographs that they have taken over the years.
There are a lot of people whose livelihood is based on crime. This isn't a valid argument for what is right or wrong.
Copyright is supposed to encourage new works for the greater good of society. This is written into the US Constitution, no less. It would be interesting to see if lengthening the term of copyright has caused an increase in the number or quality of creative works being produced. I highly doubt that it has.
> A prediction / alternate world -- if copyright was 10 years on software, you'd get an EaaS model - everything as a service.
Why would it change anything for existing free/open-source software? We'd still have GNU/Linux and the BSDs. If it made proprietary software even worse, then so be it. More reason to use free software.
> There are a lot of people whose livelihood is based on crime. This isn't a valid argument for what is right or wrong.
You are suggesting depriving artists and writers of their livelihood.
I will agree that the Disney Micky mouse mess is ugly and does make things worse, but making it so that a photograph that I took {N} years ago is no longer something that I am able to protect and gain value from is... not something that I'm ok with. I do still sell the occasional print from a photo I shot a decade (or two) ago. Having someone else take that print and then make a poster from it and sell that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
> Why would it change anything for existing free/open-source software? We'd still have GNU/Linux and the BSDs. If it made proprietary software even worse, then so be it. More reason to use free software.
Open source would lose its protections after that decade. MongoDB for example went AGPL in '09... and that wouldn't be enforceable anymore on that version.
My prediction is that open source would die shortly afterwards since there would be no way to enforce the GPL or any copyleft on old code.
No, open source wouldn't be thriving in that world as it can't enforce its license through copyright.
BSDs wouldn't really notice. Linux and the GPL would find itself closed source - not just locked down and tiviozed. GPLv3 and AGPL would lose all their teeth.
The GPL is there to try to make it easier to hack or tinker with the things you own that use something that has been GPLed. With copyright toothless on old code, that GPL and AGPL gets used without contributions. Proprietary steps up its DRM and licensing - where you're "renting" an application with a subscription so copying it from one computer to another is pointless... but then we're already there for proprietary applications.
A short term copyright is a loss for artists and open source - it doesn't make it worse for exiting proprietary applications.
> but making it so that a photograph that I took {N} years ago is no longer something that I am able to protect and gain value from is... not something that I'm ok with.
That's unsurprising.
> Having someone else take that print and then make a poster from it and sell that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Don't share it then. Simple solution. Nobody will ever enjoy your pictures but you.
> The GPL is there to try to make it easier to hack or tinker with the things you own that use something that has been GPLed.
No it's not. The GPL is not about you or me. The GPL is about society. This is what you don't seem to get. Maximising the greater good for society rarely coincides with maximising individual interests. Think of it like global optimisation vs local optimisation. Permissive licences seem to locally maximise individual freedom, ie. if you happen to have the source code right now, you have complete freedom to do what you want, up to and including denying others that freedom. The GPL tries to globally optimise freedom by "disabling" copyright. So you have the freedom to do what you want, but you don't have the freedom to deny those same freedoms to others.
If we reformed copyright, of course a few individuals would lose out. But society as a whole would be far richer.
> There are a lot of photographers who's livelihood is based on their library of photographs that they have taken over the years.
There are a lot of people whose livelihood is based on crime. This isn't a valid argument for what is right or wrong.
Copyright is supposed to encourage new works for the greater good of society. This is written into the US Constitution, no less. It would be interesting to see if lengthening the term of copyright has caused an increase in the number or quality of creative works being produced. I highly doubt that it has.
> A prediction / alternate world -- if copyright was 10 years on software, you'd get an EaaS model - everything as a service.
Why would it change anything for existing free/open-source software? We'd still have GNU/Linux and the BSDs. If it made proprietary software even worse, then so be it. More reason to use free software.