Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once you admit that you arent against all IP laws, then you (implicitly) imply that you agree that IP can exist. So, this debate isnt about whether IP exists, but about whether or not music should be considered IP.


So, essentially: then what is the difference between someone who writes a song and someone who invents a process to make a drug (or whatever aspect of IP you agree with)?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really bad comparison. A patent has a shelf-life of 20 years. A drug is patented with exclusivity shelf life of seven years. A song is copyrighted with a shelf-life of life + 70 years.

Why is a song worth 90 years of protection and a life-saving drug is only allowed twenty years of protection with only seven years of exclusivity?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, how long exactly IP shelflife is, is kinda moot. This is more about whether it should exist for music. If we dont agree there, debating how long it takes to expire is putting the cart before the horse.


But, wrt what you asked, id say its probably a good idea not to have life saving drugs be patented for something like 70 years, since it ALLOWS PEOPLE TO HAVE A MONOPOLY ON A LIFE SAVING DRUG, POTENTIALLY KEEPING THE PRICE OUT OF THE REACH OF SOME CONSUMERS.


I think its pretty clear keeping cost of drugs down is more important than it is for music. You need to balance keeping costs down for consumers with making sure the companies that make the drugs have significant incentive to keep making them.


edit: mia beat me to it