What's wrong with current copyright laws?

[edwest2]

It seems some people have some negative things to say about copyright laws in the United States. I invite everyone to provide a list with specific examples and further details. It can be long or short.

Here’s the issue: If there is a problem with a law and it goes to court, a judge needs to know two things.

1. Who has been injured or treated unjustly?
2. Show me evidence of harm or damages.

Peace,
Ed

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t know if this would get anyone anywhere in court, but I believe it is bad for our cultural coninuity to have the copyright last so long. Used to be 28 years, which was about a generation. Thus parents were able to buy reprints of the stories they loved as children and pass them on. This is how we weeded out the no-so-good from the classics.

Now, however, it is more of a hassle to print a book the previous generation liked because of the lack of clarity wrt the owner, payment issues, etc. So each generation we just get new books.

And all of this because Disney Corp wanted to maintain control of Mickey Mouse? That was not worth it.

 

[coachdennis]

I don’t know if this would get anyone anywhere in court, but I believe it is bad for our cultural coninuity to have the copyright last so long. Used to be 28 years, which was about a generation. Thus parents were able to buy reprints of the stories they loved as children and pass them on. This is how we weeded out the no-so-good from the classics.

Now, however, it is more of a hassle to print a book the previous generation liked because of the lack of clarity wrt the owner, payment issues, etc. So each generation we just get new books.

And all of this because Disney Corp wanted to maintain control of Mickey Mouse? That was not worth it.

Many freelancers I know have copyright on their creative works. The royalties they receive can be a significant part of their income. Since many of them are planning to live longer than the 28 years mentioned, why would providing cultural continuity be more beneficial than depriving people of legitimate income?

 

[JIB]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

 

[St_Francis]

Many freelancers I know have copyright on their creative works. The royalties they receive can be a significant part of their income. Since many of them are planning to live longer than the 28 years mentioned, why would providing cultural continuity be more beneficial than depriving people of legitimate income?

Actually I would not mind if the writer could renew the copyright and start over again, but this is not what happens. Few writers benfit from the lengthening of the copyright because their books don’t stay in print that long, and if they do, they have already earned *a lot *of money from the book.

But what is currently happening is that books remain under copyright and are *not printed. *The authors don’t get any money from that, *and *the society loses the book.

 

[Godfollower]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

Then why should Dr. Seuss, or Tom Clancy, or George Lucas, or anyone write books, or screenplays, or movies? If you spend three years of your life sweating over a manuscript to produce The Great American Novel and I get to make and sell copies undercutting your sales, you’ll never make any money.

Your suggestion, if it became law, would serve as a serious disincentive to create. Even the gifted writers / painters / composers etc. who had to create because it’s in their blood would have to cut back on their creative work because they would have to earn a living doing something else. There would be no full-time writers or artists (other than the occasional gifted rich person).

 

[coachdennis]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

If a person is making a living by those “certain grouping of words” , then using them without acknowledgment and/or permission in the public square could be depriving them of income. How is that right?

 

[Godfollower]

I don’t know if this would get anyone anywhere in court, but I believe it is bad for our cultural coninuity to have the copyright last so long. Used to be 28 years, which was about a generation. Thus parents were able to buy reprints of the stories they loved as children and pass them on. This is how we weeded out the no-so-good from the classics.

Now, however, it is more of a hassle to print a book the previous generation liked because of the lack of clarity wrt the owner, payment issues, etc. So each generation we just get new books.

And all of this because Disney Corp wanted to maintain control of Mickey Mouse? That was not worth it.

Many freelancers I know have copyright on their creative works. The royalties they receive can be a significant part of their income. Since many of them are planning to live longer than the 28 years mentioned, why would providing cultural continuity be more beneficial than depriving people of legitimate income?

Actually I would not mind if the writer could renew the copyright and start over again, but this is not what happens. Few writers benfit from the lengthening of the copyright because their books don’t stay in print that long, and if they do, they have already earned *a lot *of money from the book.

But what is currently happening is that books remain under copyright and are *not printed. *The authors don’t get any money from that, *and *the society loses the book.

I agree that the term is getting to be too long: life of the author plus 70 years for individually created works, and either 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation for works written anonymously or created “for hire.” (17 U.S.C. § 302). What happens when Mickey nears 95 years of age – increase the term to 125 years?

At some point, copyright should expire. And that time period should be reasonable. And, if the book isn’t available anymore from the copyrighted source, there should be some way to bring it back into print – perhaps using government-issued copyright licenses, the way “covers” of songs can be ordered.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think the fact that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author is too much. If that were always the case throughout history, a play like Romeo and Juliet would never have been written (since it is based on an earlier work…unless we imagine Shakespeare forking over gobs of money in licensing fees, which, frankly, I cannot imagine).

It’s a system where only the rich can afford to be creative utilizing other people’s works. I don’t think that’s a benefit for the common good.

And, yes, I’m well aware that nothing is holding people from creating their own intellectual property. But the history of art would be a much shorter read without artists borrowing from each other. “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.”

I think it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway just to minimize the chance I am misunderstood. I am not advocating getting rid of copyright laws entirely. I certainly am not advocating breaking existing copyright laws. As much as I think reform is necessary, I think we need to respect the laws in place. I think the system in place right now has lots of problems, but I don’t pretend to have a just and equitable solution. I’m not enough of an expert to really know a good answer.

 

[chevalier]

Too high prices, burdensome restrictions on use/fair use, the fact middlemen benefit rather than artists.

 

[Joe_5859]

Many freelancers I know have copyright on their creative works. The royalties they receive can be a significant part of their income. Since many of them are planning to live longer than the 28 years mentioned, why would providing cultural continuity be more beneficial than depriving people of legitimate income?

I can understand that, but what other profession allows a person to work for a short period of time and then profit off it indefinitely? Imagine if you only had to show up for work for 10 weeks and then you could pull in regular checks for the rest of your life without putting forth any more effort.

J.K. Rowling would still be a billionnaire even if her copyright on Harry Potter expired in another 13 years. Of course, she’s an extreme example, but I think that 28 years is plenty of time to make money off of a creative work. As it is, if J.K.Rowling lives to be 80, Harry Potter would remain under copyright for another 100 years!

 

[Gertabelle]

I agree that the term is getting to be too long: life of the author plus 70 years for individually created works, and either 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation for works written anonymously or created “for hire.” (17 U.S.C. § 302). What happens when Mickey nears 95 years of age – increase the term to 125 years?

At some point, copyright should expire. And that time period should be reasonable. And, if the book isn’t available anymore from the copyrighted source, there should be some way to bring it back into print – perhaps using government-issued copyright licenses, the way “covers” of songs can be ordered.

I agree that the term is too long. Seventy years – SEVENTY? – after the death of the author? Who benefits from that except publishers? Publishers and greedy descendants who want to make money on work they didn’t do.

Sorry for the attitude. This topic just drives me to the brink of distraction some days!

Gertie, the grumpy musician

 

[coachdennis]

I can understand that, but what other profession allows a person to work for a short period of time and then profit off it indefinitely? Imagine if you only had to show up for work for 10 weeks and then you could pull in regular checks for the rest of your life without putting forth any more effort.

J.K. Rowling would still be a billionnaire even if her copyright on Harry Potter expired in another 13 years. Of course, she’s an extreme example, but I think that 28 years is plenty of time to make money off of a creative work. As it is, if J.K.Rowling lives to be 80, Harry Potter would remain under copyright for another 100 years!

Please do not take this personally… I am using your example.

Is the problem most people have with the copyright laws is that they limit access to the creative works of others … or … is it sour grapes because they didn’t get a Harry Potter-like character copyrighted first??

I’m sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but I have seen for myself and heard comments by “also-rans” in the arts whose protestations about copyright injustices seems to masquerade professional jealousy?

 

[Godfollower]

Please do not take this personally… I am using your example.

Is the problem most people have with the copyright laws is that they limit access to the creative works of others … or … is it sour grapes because they didn’t get a Harry Potter-like character copyrighted first??

I’m sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but I have seen for myself and heard comments by “also-rans” in the arts whose protestations about copyright injustices seems to masquerade professional jealousy?

I wish I had written something like Harry Potter, with all that success.

But I wish J.K Rowling well. Good for her! And she’s entitled to enforce the copyright laws with respect to her works.

 

[JimG]

I don’t believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don’t think it’s legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I’ve never met and won’t physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

So you think you should be able to reproduce, say, “The Hunger Games” trilogy, and sell your own copies for your own profit, and the author is entitled to nothing? Or you could pick out any popular novel, any book, and sell it yourself.

A good way to kill of the creative arts entirely. The same goes for photography.

 

[PaulinVA]

I am shocked.

I am shocked at the number of people who think they have a “right” to other people’s work. It’s amazing.

 

[april32010]

I am shocked.

I am shocked at the number of people who think they have a “right” to other people’s work. It’s amazing.

doesn’t surprise me in the least, this is the third thread in a month. and people come from all points of the compass to complain that someone would want to profit off their work.and they have variety of reasons and rationales why they should be able to freely copy just about anything. wow! have to edit this post,someone just posted this

ATLANTA—The Archdiocese of Atlanta has received a substantial gift from the estate of Margaret Mitchell’s nephew, Joseph, including a 50 percent share of the trademark and literary rights to “Gone With the Wind.”

georgiabulletin.org/local/2012/08/16/mitchellestate/

 

[exoflare]

why they should be able to freely copy just about anything.

Who said that?

 

[april32010]

Who said that?

here ya go

I don't believe intellectual property is legitimate. Only real property is legitimate. While there are arguments for why it is socially beneficial for the government to enforce intellectual property rights, I don't think it's legitimate that I am not allowed to use my own typewriter and paper in the way I want because someone I've never met and won't physically hurt in any way says he has ownership over a certain grouping of words.

 

[april32010]

Aug 9, '12, 10:53 am
Timothysis Perhaps in the mind of publishers, but in the real world if I want to loan a CD to someone or rip it to my computer and give it to them on a thumb drive, then I will. The concept of someone else’s “rights” seem rather abstract when I go to a store, spend money on a CD and have it sitting in my home or put it on my computer (actually, an external drive) that I have bought and paid for. It is mine and, unless I’m copying it and selling it for money, I can do whatever I want with it.

here is another one from this thread forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9628605#post9628605