@strypey@icedquinn if you obeyed the spirit of no indefinite copyright you would only extend copyright for new works not existing works so functionally there is no difference. why would extensions stop so long as the mechanism (lobbying) never changes.
We're disagreeing over terminology. Indefinite copyright *extension* is a thing. "Indefinite copyright" suggests a copyright that never expires, which is technically not a thing. Even is the constant extensions have that practical effect. It's a subtle difference, but an important one all the same.
@strypey > regulate digital services i think indefinite copyright should be abolished, returned to 18-20 years from release, and anti-archivist technology like DRM should be destroyed.
I'm writing a blog piece about the Digital Markets Act in the EU, and legislation of the same name in the UK. As well as others laws in play or on the horizon to regulate digital services.