Amazon.com Widgets

Should we shorten the length of copyright protection?

  • Copyright is immoral.

    Practically speaking, content creators do not need to be able to sit on their asses and get money for the rest of their life + 70 years just for creating one thing. Copyright as it is now probably stiffles innovation by preventing other people from using ideas of others to build upon and by removing incentive for the content creator to keep creating.

    Morally speaking, making money on creating content is the content creators responsibility, not that of other people. As long as it does not harm others one should be allowed to put on his computer (for example) whatever he desires because his computer is his property. And putting copyrighted stuff on ones computer without paying does not harm the content creator. It makes no difference to the content creator whether one puts his content on ones computer without paying or does not use it at all. In both cases the content creator gets no profit but also no harm from said person. So if downloading copyrighted stuff without paying the price is harming content creators, then not using their stuff also harms them, and by that logic we are all as bad as pirates. But obviously we have the right to not use a content creator's content, and thus we should also have the right to use it without paying for it since to the content creator this makes no difference.

    I place morality before practicality so I think that copyright short be shortened to exactly 0 years. This may or may not stiffly innovation, but at least we are not trampling on peoples rights.

  • Copyright is immoral

    Practically speaking, content creators do not need to be able to sit on their asses and get money for the rest of their life + 70 years just for creating one thing. Copyright as it is now probably stiffles innovation by preventing other people from using ideas of others to build upon and by removing incentive for the content creator to keep creating.

    Morally speaking, making money on creating content is the content creators responsibility, not that of other people. As long as it does not harm others one should be allowed to put on his computer (for example) whatever he desires because his computer is his property. And putting copyrighted stuff on ones computer without paying does not harm the content creator. It makes no difference to the content creator whether one puts his content on ones computer without paying or does not use it at all. In both cases the content creator gets no profit but also no harm from said person. So if downloading copyrighted stuff without paying the price is harming content creators, then not using their stuff also harms them, and by that logic we are all as bad as pirates. But obviously we have the right to not use a content creator's content, and thus we should also have the right to use it without paying for it since to the content creator this makes no difference.

    I place morality before practicality so I think that copyright short be shortened to exactly 0 years. This may or may not stiffly innovation, but at least we are not trampling on peoples rights.

  • Yes, it's stifling innovation.

    Right now, nothing is entering the public domain. Copyright laws just keep getting extended, all to protect works that are cash cows.
    A copyright length of 50 years would:
    - Allow someone to earn a profit
    - Encourage them to think of new ideas
    - Benefit society in 50 years, and allowing people to change the idea

    As for "Giving their family something", that's what inheritance is for. Copyright doesn't need to be inherited by families.

  • Just the life of an author

    Copyright was created to, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8). If we extend copyright you are not promoting progress of sciences and useful arts

  • Yes, 50 years max

    Copyright was created to, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8). If we extend copyright you are not promoting progress of sciences and useful arts

  • For 30 years

    Copyright is to have , " The Congress shall have Power To...Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries...." (Constitution ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8). If we lengthen the copyright it no longer pushes for the progress of science ant useful arts.

  • Yes around 10 years

    Well developments are fast and companies still need to keep developing for competitive uses so why can't they just share old techs to everyone? That will make the world more competitive and don't reduce so much incentives the benefits just outweigh the cost
    we have little economic growth even in this era of chance because of this we need to change the way of copyrights

  • Yes around 10 years

    Well developments are fast and companies still need to keep developing for competitive uses so why can't they just share old techs to everyone? That will make the world more competitive and don't reduce so much incentives the benefits just outweigh the cost
    we have little economic growth even in this era of chance because of this we need to change the way of copyrights

  • Yes 10 years might be enough

    Because today techs developments are fast and companies still need to develop tech to compete with another tech 10 years are enough for most techs and this will inspire more competitors to use techs 10 years ago and develop a new tech then the world will be a lot more efficient

  • We should shorten copyright from 95 years to 50 years

    We should shorten the length of copyright because copyright was created to create more freedoms among creators. Not less. Why the hell should we not be able to use characters created in our lifetime until 95 years after they were created (when almost no one alive remembers when they were first published).

  • It is good the way it is

    It is good the way it is The person who set up the copyright protection because they came up with an idea to promote or develop something. If they put a lot of time and energy into this item, obviously they would want to hold on to it for a long time. Maybe restricting what you can copyright would be a better thing to look at.
    Report Post

  • No, copyright helps protect a person's legacy.

    Copyright lasts for an entire lifetime of the person, followed by a set amount of years following the person's death (currently 70 years after publication in the United States). While some people may find it frustrating that they can't legally copy things like books, copyright protects a person's work and makes sure that this person, and then their family, benefits from it. People in other jobs would be quite frustrated if someone got all of their hard work for free. Allowing people who create to own what they created, and then pass down some of the profit to their family, is the least we can do in thanks for them contributing something of value to society. That we eventually "own" it in public domain eventually is what is shocking.

  • No we should not shorten the length of copyright protection

    No, I do not think that it is fair to those people who have worked hard to have their works copyrighted and to try and make a profit off their hard work to then have their copyright shorten. The copyright limits should remain intact so that the people who filed the copyright can see some profits.

  • No, we should not shorten the length of copyright protection

    Copyright protection was put in place so that people with creative ideas could get paid for their work and company's couldn't just use their work for their own personal gain. Any decrease in the amount of time a copyright protection last could be up for debate. Do they want to shorten by a couple of years? Or shorten it to only last 1 year to which point the copyright would be useless.

  • No, shortening the length of copyright protection is not the right kind of reform.

    I would be the first to argue that copyright law needs to be seriously reexamined, but I don't think that shortening the length of copyrights would be helpful. Copyrights exist for such a long time to protect the creator and hopefully provide for them and their families; by shortening that period of copyright, the creator's funds are in danger due to imitators. Ideally, copyright reform would allow for different kinds of usage in legal ways, but shortening copyright length really only has the potential to harm the people the laws were designed to protect.

  • No, not at all.

    Copyright protection should not be shortened. Property is property, especially intellectual property, and it deserves to remain the property of its "inventor" for as long as that inventor wishes it to be. Shortening copyright protection is unfair to the creator, and could result in further problems arising from a free-for-all attitude once the copyright would expire.

  • It is good the way it is

    The person who set up the copyright protection because they came up with an idea to promote or develop something. If they put a lot of time and energy into this item, obviously they would want to hold on to it for a long time. Maybe restricting what you can copyright would be a better thing to look at.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.