Talk:Copyright
Script error: No such module "Message box".
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Copyright Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "English variant notice". Script error: No such module "Article history". Script error: No such module "Category handler".Script error: No such module "Copied". Script error: No such module "Banner shell". Script error: No such module "Message box". User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn User:MiszaBot/config
Evolution of length of copyright is poorly covered
The article is very skimpy on the evolution of length of copyright. It does not say what was the length in the Statute of Anne, for example. One must read half the article to find that the period was initially 14 years in the US. Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
"Intellectual property" is a very misleading term
Copyright is not property. Copyright is a monopoly right that is expressly limited in time, whereas property is permanent. Violating copyright is violating a monopoly concession, a business offense; whereas violating someone's property right is theft, a very serious crime. The reason why the term "intellectual property" came to be common in the late 1900s is because publishers want copyright to become permanent too, and its violators to be criminally prosecuted for theft. Wikipedia should be wary of helping that attempt at "legislation by lexicon". Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
singular they
[this is in regards to a dispute over the preferred phrasing in the "moral rights" section; the dilemma is between using "him/her" in a sentence, to match a singular antecedent, or "them"]. as can be seen by reading the wikipedia article on "singular they", the pronouns "they/them" can be used grammatically as singular pronouns. this usage is also present in the online oxford dictionary, under (they>meaning and use>1.2.b). finally, as I'm sure many are aware, some people are referred to neither by "he" nor by "she", which is why I see it valuable to use the more general "they". I accept that this disagreement won't be resolved by brute-force edit wars, which is why I won't reedit this again, but only ask that future edits on this issue be addressed under this topic and given full elaborations; this includes in particular, in the case of the previous edit, backing up the (implied*) claim that "they" should not be used as a singular pronoun. *I recognize that this is my subjective reading of the previous editor's edit description, and would appreciate being corrected if this was not (his/her/their) intention. SchwartzYosale (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024
Script error: No such module "protected edit request". change "In many modern day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ." to "In many modern-day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ." Ctheorya (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- File:Yes check.svg Done Thank you for catching this! :) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
