Or "what would you change about the current copyright laws for software, if you had the power?"

I always thought about reducing the period to 15 years, where the developer had to make the software free to retain some copyright over content. Otherwise, everything becomes public domain.

Applying general rules as is done today, always seemed to me counter-productive given the fast pace of the computer industry.

If always found that the idea that software falls under copyright (which in all countries have the longest protection e.g. 50 years) instead of more appropriate equivalents such as industrial design a bit ridiculous and intellectually irresponsible in the context of legal philosophy.

Pls. Explain.

Something that's been bugging me for decades. An (incorrect, to my opinion) perspective that software should receive higher degrees of intellectual property protection due to it's volatile nature of being pirated. Ignoring the fact that the very technology used is, by nature used for duplication...and pretend to act as if piracy or any form of unauthorized duplication is a permanent business risk.

Hardware receives lesser intellectual property protection, usually in the form of industrial design (usually 15 years, country depending), patent or trade secret. The object itself is not protected by intellectual property rights, but the idea. Stealing a physical object is of course already regulated.

Stealing a non-physical object however, i.e. software is problematic. You don't 'steal' software, as the traditional sense of something being stolen is 'A is moved to B'. Even electricity can be stolen, but not software. Stealing in regards to software usually refers to unauthorized duplication.

Problem is, there seems to be an odd exception and confusion when it comes to software. Software usually receives the longest form of intellectual property protection and yet compared to others it is also the quickest to become obsolete...and yet the later fact is almost always ignored when promulgating its regulation. Software isn't a physical object and yet it's not just an idea either.

Now they say that we can't alter, reverse engineer or whatever, the software we just purchased. That we have to re-purchase DLC's if the one we have is screwed and yet its duplication itself costs next to nothing for the manufacturer.

Suddenly it's possible to 'purchase' and yet not 'own'. We don't own the authorized duplication. Somewhere along the line, software has somehow obtained more protection than any single private object in legal history. The only other object I remember that receives similar protection is state-issued currency.

Have I ever mentioned that common sense isn't a universal trait? :p

Nevermind me. It's not that the average Joe actually thinks nor cares about this kinda stuff.

I think that phrase pretty much defines the software industry as a whole.

Reminds me of this story...

I never did grasp U.S. contractual law: the notion of justice (read=in good faith) is secondary to contractual 'fine print' obligation. No wonder people constantly get screwed over.

Then again, what do you expect from capitalism? :p

CEOs who keep making decisions that hurt their customers should be held liable and fired ASAP.

Dragons and all things Middle Earth would be banned forever. Transgression would be punishable by death.

Your fetish for flying sheep ain't exactly marketable, doc. :p

Definitely reduce the copyright. Abandonware should be made legal.

Though I don't thinik anyone cares anyway. I mean, we all download and play images and ROMs of old games, even those who have qualms about pirated newer releases.