I’m not opposed to intellectual property because there’s an argument for providing a limited time monopoly to the creators of works to provide incentive to make works public. Without any such incentive, it’s entirely possible that the monetization structures for different works change, for example locking content behind restrictive systems that don’t allow for personal use at all.

The key is “limited time”. If you can’t make your money back in 15 years, then maybe it’s time to make a new thing? The idea that someone should own a thing you made after you’re dead is stupid – how exactly will that promote you to create new works? If you’re dead, your creating days are over except for creating plant food out of your bones and organs.

I put my money where my mouth is, and the legal page of the graysonian ethic specifically lists that the book is put into the public domain or license after Creative Commons CC0 license after 15 years from the date of first publishing.

Other than liking the nice round number of 20 years, that’s exactly my take. Copyright longevity creates perverse incentives for rights holders, and it locks down the ability of other creators to use common cultural references.

I’d say no more than 10 years for ANYTHING. Copyright, patent, you name it. I would also prohibit any and all software and design patents.

Trademark would last only as long as actively in use.

These changes alone (without other major reforms) would be particularly catastrophic in sectors that require large investment over a long period of time. For example, pharmaceuticals typically cost billions and take 10-15 years to develop.

Billions typically paid for by government subsidy, id est taxpayers. I’m not sure what the justification is for private IP rights when the capital is socialized.

i so seldom see anyone actually write out ‘id est’ instead of ‘i.e,’ that part of my brain insisted for a solid second that it had to be a typo lol