<story><title>Canada extends copyright protection another 20 years to meet trade obligation</title><url>https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dionidium</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think you need to invoke the power of evil corporations to explain why this gets so little pushback in the public discourse.&lt;p&gt;Matthew Yglesias did a tweet thread a while back arguing that copyright terms should be shorter and the responses were instructive. People -- regular people -- have a pretty deep intuition that if you create something, then it belongs to you -- forever. The Jeffersonian notion that copyright exists only to incentivize new works is to most folks an odd one. His mentions filled up with authors arguing that their great-grandkids should enjoy the fruits of their labor, sentiments that garnered broad support from basically everyone except copyright law nerds (like myself).</text></item><item><author>greatgib</author><text>Terrible how commercial lobbies are now able to hurt populations like that so easily to defend their own interests with very little oversight.&lt;p&gt;It is not like a decision of the citizens that was debated in an assembly, just we do things because they were decided in secret international meetings or corrupted politicians.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>retrac</author><text>That has not been my experience; I&amp;#x27;ve brought up copyright a fair bit in conversations over the years (much to the chagrin of my friends, acquaintances and coworkers, I&amp;#x27;m sure).  I&amp;#x27;ve literally never met anyone who thinks the great-grandchildren of an author should be financially compensated for their great-grandparents&amp;#x27; work.  That very scenario is usually the example I bring up -- the old &amp;quot;If I built and installed a plumbing fixture, should my great-grandkids be able to collect licence fees on its use?&amp;quot; analogy is persuasive.  I do agree people generally think that an intellectual work created is rightfully the property of the creator -- but most don&amp;#x27;t extend that much past death.</text></comment>
<story><title>Canada extends copyright protection another 20 years to meet trade obligation</title><url>https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-extends-copyright-protection-another-20-years-to-meet-new-trade/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>dionidium</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think you need to invoke the power of evil corporations to explain why this gets so little pushback in the public discourse.&lt;p&gt;Matthew Yglesias did a tweet thread a while back arguing that copyright terms should be shorter and the responses were instructive. People -- regular people -- have a pretty deep intuition that if you create something, then it belongs to you -- forever. The Jeffersonian notion that copyright exists only to incentivize new works is to most folks an odd one. His mentions filled up with authors arguing that their great-grandkids should enjoy the fruits of their labor, sentiments that garnered broad support from basically everyone except copyright law nerds (like myself).</text></item><item><author>greatgib</author><text>Terrible how commercial lobbies are now able to hurt populations like that so easily to defend their own interests with very little oversight.&lt;p&gt;It is not like a decision of the citizens that was debated in an assembly, just we do things because they were decided in secret international meetings or corrupted politicians.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>WeylandYutani</author><text>Most people receive a salary. They don&amp;#x27;t own their work. No different from the people who work at Disney studios.</text></comment>