I didn’t overlook it simp. I was pointing out to you that it doesn’t go with the rest of the idiotic argument. Scientific patents are for significantly less than 28 years, as they were in the time of the founders.
What was backup example #1? Fifty Shades of Gray needed to be published as Twilight fan fiction? Lol!
Using today’s copyright laws, one can copyright an ‘idea’ or ‘phrase’, not a work or invention. This has been done usually in the high tech field and has had a chilling affect on development: why work on a project if someone has copyrighted the ‘idea’ but has not created a prototype or actually invented/developed the item resulting from an abstract idea?
I am a firm believer that copyrights should be limited in scope to true works or inventions, not a phrase (an exception would be a commercial or marketing copyright) or abstract idea which I believe is chilling on industry.
As an artist I would be very reluctant to have my creations duplicated and sold without stringent copyright laws in existence. My heirs should be able to benefit for some period of time as I am now 60-years old.
Two hundred years ago, people did not live as long as today’s population. Some inventions take a while to become established and earn money for the inventor, or the artist/writer who created it. Perhaps 14-years should be extended to some greater length of time, say 25-years, with an extension of another 15-years? That, to me, would be equitable.