Seuss said:

> But I think the pros outweigh the cons.

The "con" is that nobody would produce/invent anything because they would not be paid for their efforts when their production/invention can be freely copied by anybody.

What are the pros?

---

Quote:

The "con" is that nobody would produce/invent anything because they would not be paid for their efforts when their production/invention can be freely copied by anybody.

---

Elmer said:

It takes an investment of between $200 and $2,000 million to bring a new drug to the market.

Now I think we can all agree that the great majority of pharmaceutical companies have all the ethical standards of Hitler, and that the copyright laws in this area are in desperate need of reform, putting an end to all copyright altogether would be a bit retarded.

---

This is exactly why I think the current copyright laws are crazy.  A drug company spends all of this money and the new drug is protected by a PATENT.  The life of a patent is typically around 17 years.  After that, all of the hard work by the drug company goes into the public domain.  This is why we have generic drugs.

On the other hand, a COPYRIGHT extends from the life of the author plus 70 years.  This results in a typical copyright life of around 140 years.

So, Mickey Mouse is given far more protection than a blockbuster miracle drug that took billions to develop.

The constitution says that congress should make laws "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

I challenge anyone here to show me how a Brittney Spears album is useful art.

neopet nub said:

SO many jobs depend on copyright laws..

This is not even debateable, we must keep them

---